Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUMBARTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dumbarton Burgh; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next; and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Women Prisoners

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the security arrangements for women prisoners; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): The security arrangements at Armagh Prison are constantly being reviewed and, where possible, improved, but account has to be taken not only of internal factors but also of the security situation in Northern Ireland generally.

Mr. Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has not received any request from the Home Secretary for an imminent transfer of the Price sisters to a prison in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Orme: The question of the Price sisters is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the views of the Secretary of State, who visited Armagh Prison

this week, about the state of that prison with regard to adequate security for the type of woman prisoner that we have to deal with in Northern Ireland at present?

Mr. Orme: We are satisfied about the security at Armagh Prison, particularly in respect of the governor and his staff. In those circumstances, until anything radically changes, we are leaving the matter as it is.

Prisoners and Detainees

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to separate Loyalist prisoners and detainees from Republican prisoners and detainees by removing the former to Crumlin Road Prison.

Mr. Orme: In the Maze and Magilligan Prisons Loyalist prisoners and detainees are already housed in compounds separate from Republican prisoners and detainees. As rebuilding of the Maze proceeds, further steps will be taken to ensure the segregation of these different classes of prisoner.
There are at present no plans to move any particular groups of prisoners or detainees to Crumlin Road Prison, Belfast.

Mr. Bradford: Does the Minister accept that the immediate or early complete separation, in separate prisons, of the prisoners and detainees from the two communities would, first, reduce the understandable agitation of relatives and friends of Loyalist prisoners and, second, increase the discipline in prisons in which Republicans are detained or imprisoned, by making more Army and prison officers available to deal with insurrection?

Mr. Orme: The problem is not only one of segregation of Republican and Loyalist prisoners. The Government are also under some pressure to segregate different groups within the Loyalist and Republican categories. That in itself creates a major problem for the Government.

Mr. Mahon: Is the Minister satisfied with what seems to some of us the facile practice in Questions of describing people as "Loyalist" or "Republican" prisoners, when both may have committed exactly similar crimes?

Mr. Orme: I take the point.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister do something about the young persons who are in the Maze Prison? I believe that they are too much under the influence of those put there for terrorist offences. Is it possible to put them somewhere else?

Mr. Orme: The Government are looking at that point.

Mr. Carson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria he intends to use when deciding the issue of Christmas parole for prisoners and detainees in Northern Ireland prisons.

Mr. Orme: A Christmas parole scheme for sentenced prisoners has been operated in Northern Ireland since 1948 and will be operated again this year. To be eligible, a prisoner must not have served a previous term of imprisonment, have been committed to prison before 30th September this year, and have served half his effective sentence. My right hon. Friend also takes into account the recommendation of the governor, the conduct of the prisoner while in prison, and other security matters. The scheme does not apply to detainees.

Mr. Carson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many prisoners and detainees have suffered severe hardships over the past months, as have their families and next-of-kin? Will he give favourable consideration to a request by those prisoners and detainees for a Christmas parole?

Mr. Orme: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the same rules are to apply this year as applied previously. I have said that the scheme does not apply to detainees. In a sense, detainees have a much more advantageous parole system throughout the year than do normal prisoners.

Convention

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now announce the date for the elections to the Convention.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the date for the election for the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 20th November—[Vol. 881, c. 1325–7]—that elections for the Convention will take place early next year, and that I shall aim to give about a month's notice of the actual date.

Mr. Latham: In order to prevent the political scene in Northern Ireland itself from being entirely dominated by self-appointed street leaders, is it not vital to do away with direct rule as soon as possible?

Mr. Rees: I am aware of the need to have fresh elections for the Convention. It would have been wrong to have them in the months following the break-up of the Executive. I must take into account the plans which have to be made, but, more important, a judgment has to be made about the political situation. Certainly, early in the new year I hope to announce the date for the Convention elections.

Mr. Molyneaux: One appreciates the Secretary of State's difficulties about a timetable, but will he bear in mind the necessity for holding these elections as early as possible? Does he agree that it is essential that the separate security battle should be won in the meantime, so that these elections can take place in a relatively calm and stable atmosphere?

Mr. Rees: I am aware of the need to be more precise at the appropriate moment. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is absolutely right: that was the position in April of this year, when some politicians did not want to support the then Assembly and Executive. However, far more important than that was the campaign at that time by the para-militarists, which made political action seem inappropriate to many people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that last week he said that he was considering taking the initiative in calling together representatives of the existing parties and groups which might put up candidates to discuss with them the problems that might arise within the Convention and the parameters which Her Majesty's Government have laid down as having to be accepted by


the leaders within the Convention. Will my hon. Friend inform the House what progress, if any, he has made?

Mr. Rees: The Clerk to the Assembly, who, as I said last week and gladly say again, is universally respected in all parts of Northern Ireland, is in touch with party leaders about the running of the Convention. It is appropriate that it should be done in that way. I shall be happy to meet the party leaders in Northern Ireland who are still Members of the Assembly and who are deliberately being paid as such. It was hoped that by taking that course there would still be party leaders to speak to in the intervening period. I should be happy to meet them. This is in no way avoiding the issue that the elections have not yet taken place. I am considering the best way to achieve a meeting.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's talks with Mr. Blackburn, the Clerk of the former Stormont Parliament, will he tell us what terms of reference he has asked Mr. Blackburn to observe in his discussions with the various party leaders whom he has contacted?

Mr. Rees: It has been agreed with the Speaker of the Assembly that Mr. Blackburn, the Clerk to the Assembly—I wish to make it clear that I have no power over the Clerk to the Assembly—will begin work on the planning that has to take place in the early days of the Convention, when these matters are in my control. That in no way alters the fact that the running of the Convention after the first few days will be a matter for the Convention itself. There are a number of matters to decide—for example, small matters such as the question of notepaper for the Convention, and many other practical matters. The example I have given is the smallest matter I could think of. These matters have to be decided, and I thought it a good idea that the party leaders should be consulted on such issues.

Terrorist Activities (Compensation Claims)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will instruct the Ulster Department

of Commerce to drop claims for compensation from firms forced to cease trading through intimidation and terrorist activities.

Mr. Orme: No, Sir. The Department of Commerce gives assistance to firms under the Industries Development Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966 and 1971 on conditions which may include a commitment to maintain employment for a specific period. If a firm closes during that period it may be right for it to be required to repay all or part of the assistance received.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for his answer. Further, I thank him for having seen me personally over the case that I have in mind. Does he agree that firms which were attracted to Northern Ireland on the favourable terms offered to them in years gone by and which have had to cease their activities largely because of intimidation or terrorist activities will now be faced with substantial claims, running into many thousands of pounds, under the terms of the leases into which they entered? Surely in all the circumstances that will be an unfair burden on the firms involved.

Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said, but I must state that it was not through terrorism that the firm that he has in mind withdrew. It was because of other difficulties, not least labour relations. In our opinion that difficulty could have been resolved much more readily and much earlier if the firm had recognised trade unions in the way which is normally accepted in 1974. Unfortunately, it did not do so and it has now withdrawn. The Government have a responsibility to protect Government money in those circumstances.

House Building

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the current levels of house building; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Like other public works, house building has been adversely affected by the troubled conditions in Northern Ireland. Strenuous efforts are being made to build more houses in the public sector. This should be reflected in future completion figures.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give an assurance that in the allocation of houses there will be no discrimination of any kind?

Mr. Concannon: I think that I can give that assurance.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister accept that the house building record of the Housing Executive has been deplorable over the past two years? Does he accept that there is general criticism of the executive by all the political parties—criticism regarding allocation and general maladministration? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do all in his power to restore some sense of local identity and to rebuild confidence in the Housing Executive?

Mr. Concannon: The Housing Executive has unfortunately become a political football. It has had some difficulty with its reorganisation. With the present troubled times it is trying to perform an impossible task in Northern Ireland. However, bearing all those matters in mind, I would like to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extension of private house ownership in Ireland could bring a little more stability into that troubled area? What are the Government thinking of doing to bring the extension of private ownership into the hands of some of the poor within the community who wish to own their own homes as much as do the more affluent?

Mr. Concannon: I am considering all aspects of house building in Northern Ireland. The Housing Executive's housing survey is due out next week. I assure my hon. Friend that we have certain ideas in the pipeline to help the stock of house building in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mather: What is the position of the tenants of public housing who have refused to pay their rents and rates?

Mr. Concannon: If by the "position" the hon. Gentleman means the number of tenants who are still on rent strike, as at 31st October there are 5,247 still on strike.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend indicate whether there have been any delays in planning procedures due to

people taking an irresponsible attitude towards the creation of new housing developments and new estates in various parts of Ireland?

Mr. Concannon: I would not say that there has been any delay or irresponsible action. I have asked for consultation with just about everyone to whom I could talk so as to achieve a basis of agreement. I am following that consultation procedure and at the moment it is proceeding pretty well.

Mr. Kilfedder: I believe that the recent report of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive indicated that about half the occupied houses in Northern Ireland are below an acceptable standard. Does the Minister appreciate that in my constituency of Down, North there is additional hardship because of the thousands of people who are on the waiting list, including young married couples and elderly people? Will the Minister give an assurance that despite the economic difficulties of the present time priority will be given to a crash building programme in Northern Ireland, and in particular in Down, North?

Mr. Concannon: Many people are awaiting finance for housing, but it is a difficult situation and will remain so for some time. If the hon. Gentleman has problems with the housing list in his constituency, I can assure him that on 21st September there were over 33,000 people on waiting lists in Northern Ireland. The housing survey that is coming out next week will set out the position. We should not blame the Housing Executive for the problems of Northern Ireland. A lot of people who had responsibility for these matters at an earlier stage have much to be sorry about.

Courts

Mr. Craig: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is aware of the growing disquiet among the legal professions in Northern Ireland because of the inadequacies of the legal system and in particular the lengthy delays in getting cases heard both in the civil and criminal jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to improve the situation.

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now publish the report of the Jones Committee.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): There has in recent years been a fundamental review of the jurisdiction and organisation of the courts in Northern Ireland by three broadly based committees. My right hon. Friend is considering urgently what legislative and other steps are now necessary in the light of the MacDermott and Lowry Reports to relieve the exceptional pressure on the courts, and it is hoped that the Jones Report will be published soon. In the meantime, additional appointments have been made to the county court bench and the courts dealing with non-jury trials have been increased from three to five, and in the new year a sixth court will be sitting for these cases.

Mr. Craig: I thank the Minister for his reply, but he must be aware that it will hardly give satisfaction. A civil action takes from 18 months to two years to work through the list. On average, people are remanded in custody for eight months in criminal cases. By any standards that is deplorable. The Minister must be aware that in 1970 the committee recommended the establishment of a central criminal court and an increase in the jurisdiction of county courts. Both measures would have helped considerably in alleviating the delays. I ask the Minister to ensure that something is done very soon in this respect.

Mr. Moyle: I do not seek to deny the general figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, but we should give credit to the courts for the way in which they are handling the vast increase in cases in Northern Ireland. For example, in 1968 the number of people tried for indictable offences at assizes and county courts was 696, whereas up to 19th November this year 1,654 cases had been dealt with. This shows that, in general, the courts are taking steps to handle with efficiency the greatly increased number of cases. We shall do our best to expedite a review of the matter and these problems.

Mr. Beith: It has taken nearly a year to get the Jones Report published. Surely a relatively simple increase in the financial jurisdiction of county courts is only what

would be in line with inflation, and could be carried out quickly. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great personal hardship is caused to many people by this long delay?

Mr. Moyle: There will be an announcement soon about the Jones Report, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that many of its provisions are interlocked with the MacDermott and Lowry Reports which have gone before it. All three have to be considered together.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that long delays in trying remand prisoners are causing great concern? A young man called Jess was in prison for 11 months on remand, the Director of Public Prosecutions refused any consideration of bail in the courts, but when the case came up for trial he refused to present evidence and the young man was released.

Mr. Moyle: Matters relating to the Director of Public Prosecutions are not within my responsibility. They are kept clear of any Executive influence, and rightly so.

Murders

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sectarian murders were committed in Northern Ireland in November; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Twenty-six murders were committed from 1st to 28th November, but it is impossible to say which were of a sectarian nature. With regard to the second part of the Question, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on 25th November.—[Vol. 882, c. 29–30.]

Mr. Duffy: Has my right hon. Friend noticed how many of these murders appear to have been committed this month on a tit-for-tat basis? Will he assure us that where those involved are known to his forces they will be pulled in and that no manpower shortages will affect patrols in high-risk areas? Will my right hon. Friend give the latest information?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right about the tit-for-tat nature of the matter. In investigating these cases, one finds that


inevitably reports in newspapers or on television of killings in one part of the community undoubtedly play a part in bringing about a very quick response.
The security forces are making strenuous efforts to stop the sectarian murders, which are taking place in Belfast in particular and which are causing so much anguish and distress in both communities. I am glad to say that during intensive operations in the past 24 hours, 34 people have been arrested, of whom three have already been charged with murder and 21 are still assisting with inquiries.
I shall use whatever processes of law are available to me, including the Emergency Provisions Act, to deal with sectarian murders and murders which are dressed up as sectarian murders. I am glad to be able to report these figures, which were given to me as I entered the Chamber.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The whole House congratulates the Royal Ulster Constabulary on its activities. In view of the tit-for-tat nature of the killings, and that some of them are not sectarian, in that both victim and murderer belong to the same community, will not the Secretary of State do something to see that the religion of victims is not publicised, either in official statements or elsewhere, or at least is publicised as little as possible elsewhere?

Mr. Rees: This is an extremely difficult matter. It would be invidious for me to mention any particular case known to me, but in many parts of Northern Ireland, particularly away from Belfast, which is more closely knit, when a murder takes place it is at once clear what the religion of the victim is. It is just not possible to keep that knowledge absolutely quiet in the area involved, because it soon gets round the local grapevine. In my investigations into this problem, I have found that sometimes there is a response many miles away in another area, where people could not possibly have known the religion of the victim except by reports which had appeared, but there is no doubt that in an individual area the religion of those concerned is known at once by the very nature of that area.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that people are running round the Province more dangerously armed than people were in the old Wild West? Does he recall that when the Labour Party was in Opposition my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the then Government about the possibility of calling all arms in and re issuing guns only to those in danger of attack? Has my right hon. Friend considered that proposition?

Mr. Rees: We have indeed looked most carefully at this matter—very much so at the prompting of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The whole question of guns is being looked at. My hon. Friend is right about the increased number of arms, but the fact is that the murders are committed not with legal arms but with illegal arms. There are people in different parts of the world who provide money and guns. As fast as we pick up illegal guns, new weapons enter the Province. If we could deal with that traffic we should have done something to deal with the situation.

Royal Ulster Constabulary (Dependants' Compensation)

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation for a scheme to have an adequate system of compensation for dependants of Royal Ulster Constabulary men murdered by the IRA.

Mr. Concannon: Arrangements already exist for providing compensation to the dependants of RUC men who are murdered.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the case of the son of one of my constituents, Constable David Houston, who was murdered by the IRA? In an agreed settlement, his young daughter had apportioned to her the meagre, mean sum of £750. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this sum is totally inadequate? Would he be prepared to look into the matter and consider whether a regular scheme of compensation could be arranged for the dependants of RUC men murdered by the IRA?

Mr. Concannon: I would not want to take issue with the hon. Gentleman across


the Floor of the House on this case, but I must tell him that the facts I have about it do not accord with those he has stated. This was an agreed settlement. If it had not been, the court would have been called upon to adjudicate. The facts I have about the case are substantially different from those of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he and I can discuss the case outside rather than across the Floor of the House. I think that would be the better course to pursue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Royal Ulster Constabulary (Strength)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the net increase in the strength of the regular and reserve Royal Ulster Constabulary, respectively, in the present year to the latest available date.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the progress which is being made in strengthening the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the expansion of the RUC Reserve.

Mr. Moyle: Between 1st January and 19th November of the present year, the net increase in the strength of the RUC was 127, of whom 45 were women; the net increase in the part-time reserve was 574, of whom 125 were women; and the net increase in the full-time reserve was 196, of whom 8 were women.
Between 2nd September—when my right hon. Friend announced the new plan for the extension of policing in Northern Ireland—and 25th November, 3,483 applications to join the RUC Reserve were received. The applications are being processed as quickly as possible and 986 recruits have been accepted so far.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been and still continues to be a marked improvement in the morale of the RUC, and that this is not unconnected with the increase in strength and with the recent initiative to which the hon. Gentleman referred? Does

he recognise that there is still a very long way indeed to go before the strength either of the regular or of the reserve RUC can be regarded as in any sense adequate?

Mr. Moyle: My right hon. Friend and I would regard policing as the key to the situation in Northern Ireland. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his favourable remarks about the morale of the RUC, which, as a result of visiting the RUC in a number of its units recently, I endorse. We have increased the establishment both of the RUC and of the RUC Reserve, but there is a long way to go in recruiting.

Mr. Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the present establishment for the RUC, and how far short of that establishment are the figures he has just given the House?

Mr. Moyle: The Royal Ulster Constabulary establishment, which was increased on 2nd September 1974 as a result of the announcement by my right hon. Friend, to which I have referred is now 6,500. The total strength of the RUC, including women, up to 19th November 1974 is 4,518.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is a fact that in the police reserve no applicant can be considered if he is aged over 57 years? Will he also confirm that if a person has already been accepted into the force he can serve until he is 60? Is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to raise the age limit for recruitment to the police reserve to 60?

Mr. Moyle: It is a question of making the best use of available manpower. We have to bear in mind that after assimilation and some form of training, someone aged 57 would not be able to give a substantial period of service to the reserve. But I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Mahon: I can give testimony to the excellent work of the RUC. Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that both communities are represented in this valuable force? Can he tell the House, or give any encouragement to the supposition, that members of the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland are recruited to the same extent as others in the Province?

Mr. Moyle: I entirely agree with the statement of principle made by my hon. Friend but I regret to say that although we do not keep figures regarding recruitment from the various communities in Northern Ireland we are very disappointed at the response of the Roman Catholic population. We understand their difficulties, of course. As far as we are concerned there are no obstacles in the way of Roman Catholics joining the force.

Internment

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is reviewing his policy of internment; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Colquhoun: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now take steps to end internment without trial in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: There is no change in Government policy, which is to end detention as soon as the security situation permits. My right hon. Friend will give due weight to any recommendations which Lord Gardiner's committee may make on this matter.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he intends to renew the present emergency legislation when it expires in December? Will he make it absolutely clear to all parties in Northern Ireland that a peaceful political solution is required as a matter of urgency and that the people of this country will not continue indefinitely to tolerate the military and economic burden without such a peaceful solution being achieved?

Mr. Orme: With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I certainly endorse what he said. The Government are striving for a political solution. We have said time and time again that there can be no military solution to the problem. There must be a political solution, and it depends on both communities to create a position in which this can be achieved.
With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the Government will have to renew the emergency powers in the relatively near future, pending Lord Gardiner's report,

but we shall not be in a position to implement any of the recommendations that the Government accept from Lord Gardiner prior to the expiration of the emergency powers, and therefore they will have to be renewed.

Mrs. Colquhoun: Does my right hon. Friend now accept that the first step towards a peaceful solution in Northern Ireland will be the ending of internment without trial? Does he further accept that the repressive legislation that is to come before the House today is a direct result of the abysmal failure of this Government and previous Governments to seek a political solution to the Northern Ireland problem?

Mr. Orme: I say to my hon. Friend that nobody wants to see the Government get rid of detention more than I do. But we must address this question to those people who are at present perpetrating violence not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom. These people know very well that the Government want to end detention. We are committed to this policy, but in our opinion some of these people want us to maintain detention for their own odd political point of view and their own political advancement, whatever that may be. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not want to see the detention powers remain on the statute book a day longer than is necessary.

Mr. Evelyn King: In the present mood of the British people, would not the right hon. Gentleman do well to give the House an unequivocal assurance that if he has any well-founded suspicion of a terrorist being about to operate and murder he will continue without compunction, scruple and delay to intern immediately?

Mr. Orme: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have powers to deal with the situation which appertains in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be dealing later today with this situation in regard to the rest of the United Kingdom. We believe that the powers that we have are adequate in regard to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that although the difficulties regarding an immediate end to internment are well understood, it remains a propaganda weapon in the hands of the IRA


in the Roman Catholic community? It is no use looking to the IRA to take the initiative in scaling down violence on which the ending of internment depends, because it does not see it as being in its interests to do so.

Mr. Orme: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a valuable and important one. When the Government look at the issue of violence—at the moment we have been dealing with the Provisional IRA—they see that violence also comes from certain sections of the para-military force on the Protestant side. Therefore, the Government and the security forces are at times in a difficult situation. We understand the propaganda weapon. As I have already stated this afternoon, we want to get rid of internment as soon as practicable. The Gardiner Committee is examining the point which the hon. Gentleman made.

Department of Health and Social Security

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the level of security in all departments at the offices of the Ministry of Health and Social Services in Crown Buildings, Asylum Road, Londonderry.

Mr. Moyle: Bearing in mind the inherent difficulties of security in a building which is open to the public, I am satisfied that all reasonable measures have been taken, or are in hand, in order to protect the building and its occupants.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I received a note from this building some time ago, which states:
Anything the Government can do, the Provos can do better. D.T.B.
This was written on a pad of the Ministry of Health and Social Services and has stamped on it:
Ministry of Health and Social Services, Crown Buildings, Asylum Road, Londonderry.
Neither the pad nor the stamp is available to the general public. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in those circumstances grave concern is felt by my constituents over the apparent ease with which supporters of the IRA have penetrated the offices of this building?

Mr. Moyle: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has handed the package to the local RUC to enable it to prosecute

its investigations. I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the point. The ingenuity of letter bombers and people of that sort is often considerable. We must watch them closely. I shall look into the matter and pursue it further.

Security

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security arrangements in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The security forces continue to work for the suppression of terrorism and the maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the transfer of the IRA bombing from Northern Ireland to England partly reflect the growing success of the security forces in Ulster, and should they not be congratulated by the House on this success? Since the problem and the danger are common to the whole of the British Isles, will early talks be held with Dublin about a co-ordinated defence plan for the whole of the British Isles?

Mr. Rees: An estimate of the question why the Provisional IRA has brought violence to this part of the United Kingdom is probably wider than the point the hon. Gentleman has made. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The number of shootings, explosions, deaths and injuries is down in the first three-quarters of this year compared with last year. That may have a bearing on what the hon. Gentleman said. We engage in discussions of a security nature with the Government of Eire. It is as well to realise that in many of the discussions about the political aspects of Northern Ireland, successive Governments in the South of Ireland have been and are utterly opposed to the Provisional IRA and that the Provisional IRA does not speak for the people of Ireland.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the general situation in Northern Ireland much worse now than it was five years ago, before the British troops moved in? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to draw any inference from that state of affairs.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right to say that the situation is worse than it was


when the British troops went in five years ago, but it does not follow that the British troops are the causative factor. If they were not in Belfast, the Catholic community in West Belfast would be at the severest risk. That is a fact that I have to take into account. If my hon. Friend cared to visit the Falls area and ask the Catholic population there what they think, I think that he would find their advice on the matter worth while.

Mr. Townsend: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Royal Military Police has a particularly important role in helping the local police force? If he does, will he do all he can to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence not to reduce its numbers in his defence review?

Mr. Rees: The Royal Military Police performs a valuable task in Northern Ireland but, as much as that is true, it is most important that we have normal policing in Northern Ireland, because it is only then that law and order will be achieved. It is a matter for all the population in Northern Ireland. The answer comes best from the people themselves and their police.

Bangor Hospital

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will, as a matter of urgency, extend the services provided by the Bangor Hospital.

Mr. Moyle: No, Sir. It is Government policy to concentrate hospital specialist services in major centres so as to make the best possible use of manpower, equipment and finance. Perhaps to anticipate the hon. Gentleman I would add that full emergency and accident services are available at the Ards Hospital.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am not satisfied with that reply. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Bangor is an area of high-density population, with a big percentage of elderly people, and that for those who have a heart attack or an accident in the streets there is no casualty department in the Bangor hospital, and no resident doctor there? Is that not a disgrace? Will the Minister take action to remedy this grave situation?

Mr. Moyle: I visited the Bangor Hospital only a few days ago and found it very cheerful, happy and efficient for the

rôle that it undertakes. Accident facilities are available at the Ards Hospital, only six miles away, and at the Ulster Hospital, only 11 miles away. I may have an opportunity to reconsider the position when the working party reports on the Bangor hospital and the facilities in the North Down area, but I am not persuaded of the hon. Gentleman's point of view.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I intend to seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)

Ql. Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements on 10th November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. It is not my practice to list my official engagements. My public engagements are, of course, regularly reported in the Press.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure the Prime Minister recalls that his public engagements included a visit to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. Even accepting that his lack of military experience—[Interruption.]—perhaps precludes him from understanding the feelings of the country's fighting men, does he not feel that there is an anomaly at that ceremony—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get back to the gutter."] There is not room while the hon. Gentleman is there.
Does the Prime Minister not feel that there is an anomaly, in that those who have died in Ulster are precluded from being remembered by inscription upon war memorials? Will not the right hon. Gentleman examine the matter and take a less rigid attitude towards it?

The Prime Minister: I would take the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question more seriously but for the first part. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, on consideration, as he is not really like this—[Interruption.]—he is not really like this. I am sure that on consideration the hon. Gentleman will feel that the occasion of a national act of remembrance is not an appropriate vehicle for making party points or smears.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that when he attends the memorial service at the Cenotaph as Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition he represents millions of working-class men and women who gave their youth and their lives in the service of this country? Will he join the rest of the House in repudiating the scurrilous and despicable comments of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)?

The Prime Minister: I think that the House has shown what it feels about the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the Secretary of State for Defence, in an answer earlier this week, has now ruled that the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is a matter for the authorities concerned with each war memorial? I think that it would be the wish of most right hon. and hon. Members that local authorities should look favourably upon the question of inscribing such names, considering the conditions in which Her Majesty's Forces are operating in Ulster.

The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is the answer I would have given if the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question had been put in different circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, the Government have made their position clear. I am sure that it would be the wish of all of us that in all the circumstances local authorities and others responsible for war memorials should act in the way the right hon. Gentleman described.

BUDGET BROADCAST

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th November on the subject of his Budget represents Government policy.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ministerial broadcast on the Budget on 12th November represents Government policy.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on the

Budget by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on television on the evening of Tuesday 12th November represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gardiner: The Prime Minister will recall that that broadcast contained an eloquent appeal for the support of the social contract, which he himself underlined this morning in his speech at his party conference. Does he accept that in fairness to working men and women he should set a time limit during which the pay obligations imposed by the social contract should be seen to apply, before bringing into operation his threatened cuts in public expenditure or increases in taxation?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that is the way to look at this matter. There were no threats of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. I pointed out this morning—I have already placed a copy of the speech in the Library, anticipating quite a number of questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House—that this is a matter for Government policy, but if such a situation developed, for whatever reason, any Government would have to take appropriate action in relation to taxation, or whatever it might be. But I do not think there is any suggestion of a time limit or clear moment when one can say that a threshold has been passed.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend next has discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he ask him to draw up the limits of the wealth tax proposals in such a way that they include those people who are presently engaged in hoarding large stocks of food, such as the middle-aged female pretender to the Tory crown, who, hour after hour, day after day, during the last several months has apparently been filching small tins of salmon from the supermarkets, thus taking it out of the pensioners' mouths?

The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for pretenders, be they female or otherwise, to certain crowns. I thought that this matter was fairly covered in my speech this morning when I talked about people doing a speculative commodity hedge against inflation.

Mr. Roberts: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wanted to see a vigorous, alert and profitable private industry. With that end in view, does not the Prime Minister think that it would be wise to renegotiate the social contract with a view to bringing in more useful people, such as employers and investors, and putting the matter on a proper White Paper basis, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has suggested?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to say that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor used those words they were not original. They were taken from our White Paper on the regeneration of industry. However, this matter has been discussed almost incessantly with employers, with management, and with useful people of all kinds. With regard to investors, as I said at some length this morning, what has been suggested would be very useful, if by investment the hon. Gentleman means injecting capital into industry where it is most needed and not using it for speculative purposes.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister on what subjects he proposes to give evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Prime Minister: My evidence will be relevant to a number of the matters covered in the Royal Commission's terms of reference.

Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will recall that on 12th November he told the House that he would be giving evidence to the Royal Commission about the allegations he made against the Press and journalists during the election campaign. He said at that time that many of the facts were being inquired into by the police. Will he specify what incidents are being inquired into by the police?

The Prime Minister: I said—indeed, I volunteered it before the House met after the election—that I would provide for the Royal Commission all the evidence at my disposal. It would not be appropriate to say exactly what the police are inquiring into, but there is

a considerable amount of information which will be made available to the Royal Commission at the right time.

Mr. Moonman: Despite what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has said, the Royal Commission was set up to deal with many important matters affecting the organisation and variety of newspapers in this country. Will my right hon. Friend give some indication whether a preliminary report will be made available, because the full report will take a considerable time?

The Prime Minister: This matter was discussed during our debate on the Press six or seven months ago. We felt that it was for the Royal Commission to decide whether, in view of the urgency of many problems affecting the Press, it should produce a fairly speedy report on at least a certain part of its field. But during the debate on the Press, which was extremely constructive, the principal problems affecting the Press in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were outlined.

Mr. Peyton: The Prime Minister said that he would make the information available "at the right time". What makes now the wrong time?

The Prime Minister: The right time will be agreed between the Royal Commission and myself. It has asked to be presented by the end of the year or shortly afterwards with the evidence of all people who have evidence to give. However, as I have made clear, there are certain inquiries going on which may make the evidence which I had in mind even more valuable to the Royal Commission. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman cannot wait to see it.

HOUSING (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment on housing problems to the annual conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council in Brighton on 30th October represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Latham: Since private housing starts in the third quarter of this year


were 8 per cent. below those of the second quarter of this year and 55 per cent. below those of the third quarter of last year, is it the considered view of Labour Ministers, as the Secretary of State suggested in his Speech, that a solution to the problem lies in a reduction of housing standards?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has omitted to indicate the very big increase in public housing starts since the present Government came to office. But he will realise the difficulty. One cannot get houses on the ground in a matter of days, weeks or months. When we came to office, housing completions in the public sector were the lowest since 1947, starts were the lowest of any time since the war despite the great immediate post-war difficulties, and the number put into new contracts was the lowest since records were started in 1951. We have brought about a significant improvement in public sector starts and future plans, and we have also considerably eased the mortgage position compared with the disastrous situation with which we were faced when we came into office.

Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the problems facing local authorities, which, it seems, will have to increase to 12 per cent. their interest charges to owner-occupiers? The Government have kept down to 11 per cent. the rate of interest charged by building societies. Is it possible to give a subsidy to local Labour councils so that they may do the same?

The Prime Minister: Irrespective of the party in office in a particular council, naturally all of us would be greatly concerned if local authority mortgagors had to pay high interest rates. Only a minority of them are paying rates in excess of 11 per cent. But the situation is still serious, and that is why the Government have made clear that we intend to study urgently the question of local authority mortgage rates as part of the wider examination of housing finance.

WORLD FOOD CRISIS

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will discuss the world food crisis at his meeting next April with the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 26th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy).—[Vol. 882, c. 113.]

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Overseas Development made a constructive contribution to the World Food Conference and many Members are most grateful for that? But is he also aware that it is highly regrettable that the European Community should have largely excluded India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka from aid in the past? As those are the poorest of the poor nations, does my right hon. Friend agree that they should be assisted first by the Community?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety in this matter, which I share, although I believe I have better news for him today. I have paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development for the negotiations which she carried out not so much in Rome as within Protocol 22 and associated questions on behalf of Commonwealth and other countries in Africa and the Caribbean.
But it was noticeable that nothing then was done about the Indian sub-continent. Her Majesty's Government expressed great concern about the exclusion of the Indian sub-continent, and the Community has now agreed a mandate for the Commission to open negotiations with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to conclude trade agreements. Negotiations with Pakistan and Sri Lanka opened earlier this month and a trade agreement with India came into effect in April.
Besides this, significant improvements under the generalised scheme of preferences have recently been agreed by the Council of Ministers. It has also been agreed that early in 1975 there should be a full review of the Community's future generalised scheme of preference strategy.

Sir Bernard Braine: Even so, does the Prime Minister recognise the widespread concern about the slow response of Governments to the growing world food shortage? Is he aware of the authoritative evidence of increasing malnutrition and rising death rates in at least 12 developing countries? Will he undertake to arrange for an early ministerial


statement in the House on what the Government are doing about the situation, so that the matter may be debated?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Many years ago he and I used to exchange from opposite sides of the House agreement, not disagreement, on this question. Some of the countries which are hardest hit by the oil crisis and the shortage of food are those which are already suffering deprivation and premature deaths, on the one hand by drought and on the other hand, tragically, by floods. We have been going into this very fully, and I will consider the question of a ministerial statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will kindly state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 2ND DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: Until about seven o'oclock a debate on a motion to take note of the Review of the Price Code, Command No. 5779, followed by a debate on the Condition of the National Health Service, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The House will also be asked to agree the Civil Supplementary Estimates. Motions on the Post Office Compensation for Limitation of Prices Order and on the (Borrowing Powers) Order.

TUESDAY 3RD DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Motion on EEC Documents Numbers R/1472/74 and R/127/74 on Energy Policy.

WEDNESDAY 4TH DECEMBER—Motion on the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) measure. Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

THURSDAY 5TH DECEMBER—Supply [4th Allotted Day]: Debate on Northern Ireland, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Motion on the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order.

FRIDAY 6TH DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 9TH DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock. The business thereafter to be announced.

Mr. Heath: I thank the Leader of the House. There are two procedural matters which I should first like to mention. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that for the first half of Monday's debate the Opposition are giving half a Supply Day so that the House may debate the Price Code in time to influence the Government before their final decision, and that the debate on Thursday on Northern Ireland is also on a Supply Day? The Monday half-day will be repaid on the second half of the following Monday, as the Leader of the House has said, and the debate will be on a subject to be chosen later. The Thursday Supply Day will be repaid after Christmas. That will be an agreeable arrangement to both sides of the House.
The whole House feels that it is becoming urgent to debate the O'Brien Report before Christmas. That has repeatedly been mentioned when statements have been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it was mentioned again in our last debate. Will the Leader of the House take note of that and give us a day before Christmas?
The Leader of the House will recognise that, whatever the views of individual hon. and right hon. Members, the whole House will wish to debate the question of capital punishment for terrorism. It is not appropriate, because of the urgency of the Bill, to debate that subject today. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that a debate on capital punishment will be held and will he name a specific date for it? If I may offer an opinion, that would greatly facilitate the business today.

Mr. Short: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for lending us a day and a half-day. I confirm that we shall repay the half-day on the second half of Monday next week and that the Opposition will choose the subject for the debate. We shall repay the other day after Christmas.
I said last week that the way is now clear for a debate on the O'Brien Report, but I am sorry to say that it will not be possible to have it before Christmas. I regret that very much. There simply is


not time, especially with the complications that we have. The right hon. Gentleman raised one of the complications. I fully agree that the time has come when the House must have an opportunity again to debate capital punishment. We propose to make a day available for that, certainly before Christmas—I hope in the week after next.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind on the O'Brien Report? It is urgent that it should be considered before Christmas, if possible, from the point of view of the agricultural industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind on that for the time being, so that if it is possible to fit in a debate he will do so.

Mr. Short: Certainly I shall keep an open mind on it. But I should be deceiving the House if I led it to believe that it will be possible to have a debate before Christmas. I do not think that it will. But I will look again at the matter. I give the undertaking which I have given many times—that the position on the export of animals will not be changed before we have debated the O'Brien Report.

Mr. Prescott: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the publication today of the report of the Starritt inquiry—promised by the Home Secretary on 2nd May—into the death of Mr. Lennon? It raises serious issues involving the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the position of the police as agents provocateurs. These are important matters which should be discussed in the House.

Mr. Short: I agree that the report which has been published today is important. The Attorney-General has already said something about it. He has concluded from the evidence in the report that there is no cause to carry out any further investigation of the police officers. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Cormack: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House Motion No. 123 on the Finer Report, which has been signed by 30 hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will he find time for an early debate on the subject?

[That this House recognises the importance of the Finer Report on One Parent Families for one in 10 families, including over a million of our children; and urges Her Majesty's Government to provide an early opportunity to debate its many recommendations.]

Mr. Short: The one-parent families with which the Finer Report deals form one of the deprived groups in our society with whom I have a good deal of sympathy. I shall do my best to arrange a debate as soon as possible, but it cannot be before Christmas.

Mr. Whitchead: My right hon. Friend said that he is considering a debate on capital punishment during the week after next. Does he think that tempers will have cooled by that time sufficiently to allow the matter to be considered dispassionately?

Mr. Short: We have always had dispassionate, objective and very good debates on this subject. I hope that the debate to be arranged will be conducted in that spirit.

Mrs. Knight: Is not the Leader of the House able to give us a definite date for the debate on capital punishment? Will he take note that outside the House there is an overwhelming body of opinion that there should be a debate and a vote not on the subject of capital punishment as a whole but on capita! punishment for terrorism and treason?

Mr. Short: I have seen the motions on the Order Paper, and no Leader of the House can ignore motions containing so many names. I am prepared to arrange a debate on this subject and I have given the House an undertaking that it will be before Christmas. I hope very much that it will be in the week after next. I shall certainly do my best to arrange it for then.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to find time to debate the strategic plan for the North-West? I am aware that he has been pestered about this during the last few months, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about a large number of recommendations contained in the plan. Given the unemployment level in the area, should not the House have a full debate on the recommendations?

Mr. Short: I know that my hon. Friends, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, are concerned not only about the strategic plan for the North-West but about similar economic planning reports for other regions. I have a great deal of sympathy with them. When the Labour Party was in opposition it used several of its Supply Days for half-day debates on regional matters. Perhaps the Conservative Party will consider that.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Leader of the House say whether it will be possible to bring before the House for renewal before Christmas the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which, I understand, expires on 24th January?

Mr. Short: I have announced that subject for Thursday of next week, after the full-day debate on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the threat to industrial relations over the HS 146, is my right hon. Friend prepared to allow, even if not next week, an early debate so that we can protect the interests of thousands of aircraft workers?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have said previously on this matter, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make an announcement as soon as he has concluded his discussions.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing crisis in Scottish education, including the disruption of examinations? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the House next week and makes a statement on the interim award expected to be announced by the Houghton Committee on Monday or Tuesday?

Mr. Short: I understand that the Houghton Committee is likely to report within the next two or three days. That report will then go to the Scottish committee and the way will be open for an interim payment, which I hope will be paid to the teachers in their December pay packet.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were questions in the House yesterday concerning the forthcoming review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Has he noted the

suggestion that, in view of the great importance of this matter, there should be a statement by the Government to the House or, even better still, an opportunity for the House to debate the subject in the near future?

Mr. Short: I noted what was said yesterday and I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subject. I cannot promise a debate, but I shall refer what he said to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to see whether it is possible for him to say anything in the House about that matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: By what strange priority does the right hon. Gentleman think it more pressing to have a debate next Wednesday on the Church measure than on the O'Brien Report?

Mr. Short: The Church of England measure is an extremely important matter for a great many people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed it is, and in many respects it changes the whole relationship between Church and State. A great many people throughout the country are very concerned about it. Among other things, it repeals almost the whole of the Act of Uniformity. I hope the House will feel that it is a provision of some importance. It has been before us for a long time, and it is high time we debated it.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House consider exchanging the proposed debate on capital punishment for a debate on the O'Brien Report, since the Opposition appear, from the noises from those benches, to be concerned about a debate on the O'Brien Report on animal welfare, for more names appear on the motion on the O'Brien Report than on the motion on Capital Punishment—and especially bearing in mind the way in which some unscrupulous elements on the Opposition benches have been exploiting the subject of capital punishment?

Mr. Short: There is great concern about both matters, and it is the job of the Leader of the House to try to assess the concern and to provide parliamentary time for it to be expressed. But I notice that there are a great many signatures on a number of motions referring directly or indirectly to capital punishment, and I feel that the House should have an opportunity to debate the matter once more.

Mr. Prior: May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman over the timing of business by suggesting that, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister this afternoon announced that the Royal Commission on the Press will be allowed to make an interim report, the Government should put off the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill until such time as editors and others have been able to give evidence to the Royal Commission and that commission has been able to say what it thinks about the closed shop? In the long run this might save the Leader of the House, and indeed the House, a great deal of time.

Mr. Short: The purpose of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to sweep away the last vestiges of the grossly unjust Act passed by the Conservative Government.

Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was unable to give an assurance that the House would have before it proposals which the agriculture Ministers are to discuss on the subject of the new beef régime in the Common Market? Will he bear in mind that the Minister of State gave assurances that before matters are finalised in the Community they will be subject to a debate in the House? Will he give an assurance that those discussions will not result in a decision on the new beef régime which could have a crucial effect on British farming?

Mr. Short: I shall look at the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked at all the dates on the orders concerned and I will try to ensure that no decision is taken in Brussels before the House has had an opportunity to discuss the matters dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee.

Mr. Faulds: When may we expect a happy announcement about the Second Church Estates Commissioner?

Mr. Short: I hope next week.

Sir Frederick Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition in his question about a debate on capital punishment was very careful in his use of the phrase a debate on "capital punishment for terrorism". However, the Leader of the House in his reply did not mention that aspect, but left

the matter open. As a long-standing abolitionist in general, and as one who does not want to confuse this general issue, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that the proposed debate will not be an overall discussion of capital punishment but will deal with the issue of capital punishment for crimes of terrorism to which, as some of us think, it is already applicable as treason?

Mr. Short: I carefully did not say anything about the form of the debate, but I am willing to talk through the usual channels about the matter. Since the topic to some extent cuts across the party structure, I should be happy to talk to any hon. Gentlemen or hon. Ladies to get their views about the form of the debate.

Mr. Peter Mills: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this winter there could be considerable suffering by animals through the shortage of feed? Therefore, is it not essential to have an early debate on the O'Brien Report? Will he reconsider this matter as the report could be of great benefit to British agriculture?

Mr. Short: I agree that the subject which the hon. Gentleman raises is extremely urgent and that is why I have pushed the matter on in the last few weeks. We are ready to debate it and will arrange a debate as soon as possible. But I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the fact of holding a debate will not mean any more fodder.

Mr. Rifkind: Referring back to the question put to the right hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), which has not been answered, will he say whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will come to the House to make a statement on the interim award to teachers?

Mr. Short: I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether he wishes to make a statement. The important consideration is that the interim payment should be paid to the teachers before Christmas. Provided that the Houghton Committee reports, as it will, in the next two or three days, there is no reason why that payment should not be made. I have tried to ensure that it will be.

Mr. Tom King: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that there was an order in regard to Norton Villiers Triumph which was removed from the Order Paper? Will there be any statement on whether that order will reappear?

Mr. Short: I said that there were difficulties between the NVT and the Meriden Co-operative. Those difficulties still exist. When and if they are resolved, the Secretary of State will table the order again.

Mr. McNamara: In regard to the business on Thursday in relation to the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether the House will have before it the advice of Lord Gardiner and his Committee and any proposals for the retention of detention in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Short: No, I am afraid the House will not have that advice before it.

Mr. George Gardiner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be most regrettable if the great public issue of terrorism and the appropriate penalties were confused or fudged by a general debate on the old issue of hanging? Will he say whether there will be an opportunity provided for a debate so that the House may reach a collective view on the important point of principle involved?

Mr. Short: That is what I meant when I spoke of the form of the debate. I am willing, through the usual channels, to talk about the form of the debate, whether it should be on a motion and, if so, what kind of motion, and the source of the motion. I am certainly willing to discuss the whole question of the form of the debate, and I have an open mind on the matter. I am willing to talk to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), or to anybody else about the matter. I am certainly ready to talk to the Leader of the Opposition to see how we can decide among ourselves the form which the debate should take.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the Leader of the House for his forthcoming attitude on the very difficult topic of capital punishment. I believe that it would be in the general interest of the House if such a debate took place on a motion which was subject to amend-

ment and which would allow any particular views to be expressed. Will the right hon. Gentleman take particular note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in asking for a debate on beef before any final decisions are made? This is a very important matter. Secondly, will he please tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that the right hon. Gentleman should make a statement next week on what he is doing about Scottish education?

Mr. Short: If it is the wish of the House, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make a statement. However, the important point is to get the money into the pay packets in December, and my right hon. Friend is determined to do that. If, as I believe it will, the Houghton Committee reports in a day or two, there is no reason why this should not be done. However, my right hon. Friend is in the Chamber, and I am certain that the has listened to what has been said. If it is the general wish of the House that he should make a statement, I am sure that he will do so.
As for the very important matter raised by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), I shall try to ensure that that is done. Perhaps I might talk to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: For the debate on Wednesday, 4th December on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9.30 on the morning of Monday 2nd December their names and the topics which they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out in the normal way. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
I should point out that this Bill will include only certain Civil Supplementary Estimates for the current year—namely those set out in House of Commons Paper No. 34. On Second Reading, it will only be in order to refer to expenditure covered by the Supplementary Estimates embodied in the Bill. Before I hold the ballot, it will be necessary


for me to scrutinise the topics of which hon. Members give notice to see whether they are in order; and I shall put in the Ballot only those topics which I am satisfied are in order. I shall publish the result of the Ballot later on Monday, 2nd December.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings in Committee on, on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill and any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act which has been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House is already aware of the reasons which have led the Government to introduce this Bill and of the broad outlines of the Bill itself. This Government, in common with their predecessors, have given the highest priority to measures to combat and to overcome terrorism. We have always affirmed that, so long as the basic political solution eluded us, only skilled and patient police work could achieve this end. But again, like my predecessors, I have throughout said that if at any time it seemed that it would be necessary and helpful to seek additional powers which would assist that work I should not hesitate to seek Parliament's approval for them.
That time has now come. We have had only too many opportunities of giving expression to our feelings of detestation of these attacks and sympathy to the victims of them. I hope that today we shall approach with determination and reasonable expedition the task of making sure that our defences against further outrages are in this situation as effective as we can make them.
It is the police who are our main protection against terrorism and it is to the police that we must give our sustenance and support. It cannot be without reluctance that we contemplate powers of the kind proposed in the Bill, involving as they must some encroachment—limited but real—on the liberties of individual citizens. Few things would provide a more gratifying victory to the terrorists than for this country to undermine its traditional freedoms in the very process of countering the enemies of those freedoms. This we must keep in mind not only today but in the future as we persevere in what may not be a short struggle to eradicate terrorism from this country.
As the House knows, the Bill proposes strengthened powers in four broad areas. First, it proscribes the IRA and makes display of support for it illegal. Second, the Bill makes it possible to make exclusion orders against persons who are involved in terrorism. Third, the Bill gives the police wide powers to arrest and detain, within limits, suspected terrorists. Fourth, it gives the police powers to carry out a security check on all travellers entering and leaving Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In Part I of the Bill, Clauses 1 and 2 deal with proscribed organisations. Under Clause 1(2) the organisation listed in Schedule 1, the Irish Republican Army, is proscribed forthwith. It will be an offence to belong, or to profess to belong, to the IRA, to invite or to provide money for it, and to arrange or to address a meeting in support of it. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment will be five years' imprisonment. As a necessary safeguard, paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 provides that a prosecution for an offence under this clause requires the fiat of the Attorney-General.
The Secretary of State has powers under subsection (3) to add to Schedule 1 any organisation that is concerned in terrorism in the United Kingdom connected with Northern Irish affairs. Terrorism means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public in fear.
The limitation to Northern Irish affairs does not, of course, mean that we regard other forms of terrorism as any less objectionable. But the proscribing of named organisations is for us a wholly exceptional measure and can be justified only by a wholly exceptional situation—a clear and present danger, as I described it in my statement on Monday, such as now confronts us. I have no immediate intention of adding further organisations to the list. But I shall certainly add other organisations, of whatever complexion, if necessary.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one matter which is causing some concern outside this House? Are we to take it that this provision includes both the provisional and the official IRA?

Mr. Jenkins: It does.
I have never claimed, and do not claim now, that proscription of the IRA will of itself reduce terrorist outrages. But the public should no longer have to endure the affront of public demonstrations in support of that body. Under Clause 2 it will be an offence to wear clothes or to display articles in public demonstrating such support. I have thus taken the opportunity to ensure beyond doubt that it will be an offence to wear articles which are plainly IRA insignia but which may fall short of the requirements for a successful prosecution under the Public Order Act. We are also increasing the penalties here.
Part II deals with exclusion orders. Its concept is derived from the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939. Its object is to enable the Secretary of State to exclude from Great Britain and, if they are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, from the United Kingdom as a whole certain people who are concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or who attempt, or may attempt, to enter the country with a view to being so concerned. Here again, terrorism means acts of violence for political ends designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland.
Only a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies may qualify for exemption from having an exclusion order made against him. Such a person is exempt if he is ordinarily resident in Great Britain and has been so for 20 years or if he was born in Great Britain and has lived here ever since.
I should also like to make clear that the order I propose to make under Clause 8—a draft of it has been made available to hon. Members—will secure that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has no other citizenship may not be removed to a place outside the United Kingdom unless he has indicated his willingness to go there.
The Bill ensures that someone who is not a citizen and is excluded from Great Britain commits a serious offence if he goes to Northern Ireland, and that he can be removed from there. There is no question of using Northern Ireland as a dumping ground for Irish terrorists who


have no close connection with Northern Ireland.
There is a technical point which I should explain about exclusion orders made against non-citizens under Clause 6. These will be orders for exclusion from the United Kingdom, and the Bill enables such orders to be made whether the person affected is in or seeking to enter either Great Britain or Northern Ireland. But in relation to the latter category—that is, Northern Ireland—the Bill needs some adaptation because the arrangements provided for in Great Britain are inappropriate in the Northern Ireland situation. Some of the adaptation is done in Clause 6 itself, but to enable the detail to be filled in the clause empowers the Secretary of State to make further adaptations by order. The Government intend that an order will be made as soon as possible.
In proposing these exceptional powers I have had in mind the need to be able to take effective action against those who are involved in the terrorist campaign but against whom there is not evidence of the kind needed for a successful prosecution, and, on the other hand, to introduce sufficient safeguards for those who are made subject to exclusion orders. The right to make representations in Clause 4 derives from the 1939 Act, but I have introduced an additional safeguard—additional to that provided in 1939—in Clause 3(2) designed to prevent a person being removed to some place with which he has no real connection, whether on the basis of his nationality or length of residence or other consideration.
I have considered carefully whether a full-scale system of judicial review should be introduced into the procedure for representations in Clause 4. But exclusion orders are concerned with national security rather than with judicial issues and, distasteful though this may be to me and to others—it involves a particular burden upon me for the time being—the final decision must, I believe, rest with the Secretary of State.
Nevertheless, I think it right that I should have informed advice and that it would be appropriate to indicate how I approach this issue. In making exclusion orders, matters of grave national security are involved. We must not be inhibited, by an inability to use highly sensitive

information, from getting rid of terrorists who may, if we do not get rid of them, commit in the future some dreadful act in this country. Advice must, therefore, be sought from people to whom secrets affecting national security can be entrusted. There can be, therefore, no question of open proceedings or the public presentation of evidence. At the same time, it is essential to ensure that individual liberties are safeguarded. Those to whom representations against exclusion are put must be men of reputation whose impartiality and sense of fairness is beyond question.
There are no recent or exact precedents. There are arrangements for dealing with cases involving national security in the public services and in the context of deportation. Advisers have been appointed to whom the person affected by a security decision may put his case. Having reviewed the case for and against the person concerned, the advisers make their report. The final decision is then taken by the Minister concerned, taking into account the advice given. For the present purpose I hope to have the assistance in this way of men of independent note either in the law or in public affairs.
Clause 7 deals with powers of arrest and detention in connection with terrorism.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Without asking the right hon. Gentleman to commit himself, in that context may I ask him to bear in mind the precedent of the aliens tribunal arrangements which operated throughout the war under the distinguished chairmanship of the late Lord Birkett, which had to handle precisely this problem, and to bear in mind also the very grave and intricate security matters involved?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall certainly bear that in mind. I shall bear carefully in mind all precedents here concerned. But what I must make clear is that we must have a body here to which highly sensitive information can be communicated, otherwise the purposes will be defeated, and that, compatibly with human rights, we must have reasonable expedition in these matters. The people concerned will have to be held in close custody until a decision is reached. It will not be possible to say that someone is a


grave security risk to this country and, in the circumstances we have experienced recently, allow them to go about their ordinary business while a decision is arrived at. I must here try to strike an extremely delicate balance. That I shall endeavour to do to the best of my ability. But what are here involved are the gravest matters of national security.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for the explanation that he has given of this clause. Taking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), may I ask whether there will be an opportunity for these people to get help and advice when seeking to make representations, having regard to the speed which will be necessary? Also, may I ask my right hon. Friend when he will be naming his adjudicators in this particular case, so that public fear about this system can be damped down?

Mr. Jenkins: On the second aspect, I must point out to my hon. Friend that they are not, and cannot be, adjudicators. This is bound to be, in my view, an executive decision, with all the heavy responsibility there involved. In the last resort, the decision must be mine. They will be advisers and not adjudicators. They will be advisers to whose opinion I shall obviously give the greatest weight. But if one is to exercise executive decision in matters of this importance, the ultimate responsibility must rest upon the relevant Secretary of State, who, I regret to say, will for this purpose be me.

Mr. Leo Abse: Am I to understand from the reply that has been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that, in fact, there will be no possibility of any legal representation being given to the person detained to help him to make his representations to the advisers? Does it mean, therefore, that he will be held in custody without advice and that the matter will then be adjudicated upon by these clandestine advisers?

Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly announce the advisers. They will not be clandestine in this case. I have not excluded the possibility of legal advice.

I should like to consider this matter further, but I must make it clear that there can be no possibility here of a judicial hearing in the full sense, since this would be defeating what I believe are the necessary purposes of this measure.

Mr. James Kilfedder: On the question of exclusion orders, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he would do if the Dublin Government refused to accept a person against whom an exclusion order was made in this country? Has he had any talks with them?

Mr. Jenkins: If he is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland—I cannot think how the Dublin Government would come into the matter if he were not—they have no right to refuse entry to him. They have no power to do that. They must accept their own citizens when they are excluded from other countries. That is the fundamental position here. I do not think that the situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is practical.
As I indicated earlier, if hon. Members were following me, there is no question of allowing people with citizenship of the Republic of Ireland and no other citizenship, having been excluded from this country, to be able legally to find their way into Northern Ireland.
Clause 7 deals with powers of arrest and detention in connection with terrorism. The particular point which I draw to the attention of the House is that under this provision the police will be able to arrest a person whom they reasonably suspect of being concerned in the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism. They may detain him on their own authority for 24 hours, and the Secretary of State may extend that period to seven days.
The object of this exceptional power, which differs from the normal power of arrest is not necessarily being related to suspicion of a specific offence—although it must be suspicion of terrorism, not anything else—is to enable the police to hold people whom they have good reason to believe are involved in acts of terrorism but whom they cannot immediately connect with specific offences. This provision will, for example, enable them to check the fingerprints of suspects against police records and to establish


whether there is evidence on which specific charges can be brought or, if not, evidence on which it would be right for the Secretary of State to make an exclusion order.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Secretary of State said 24 hours, but the Bill refers to 48 hours. I think that for the record the right hon. Gentleman should correct it to 48 hours.

Mr. Jenkins: If I said 24 hours, I am sorry. My recollection is that I said 48 hours.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): No. My right hon. Friend said 24 hours.

Mr. Jenkins: I apologise to the House. It is 48 hours with extension to seven days. It is not seven days in addition to the 48 hours, but a total of seven days on the authority of the Secretary of State.
The power of detention is another power which is justified by the grave situation which we face. It is wrong in this situation that the police should have grounds for suspecting that a person is involved in terrorist activities but be unable to detain him to check their suspicions because they do not have evidence of a specific offence. Inability on their part to act in such circumstances might well be decisive in determining whether a major act of terrorism was avoided.
It is also right that there should be safeguards against abuse of this power. It is for this reason that detention beyond 48 hours will require the approval of the Secretary of State. In no circumstances can a person be detained under this power for longer than seven days. The normal rules and safeguards relating to persons in custody will be observed by the police. In my view, it is right that the decision whether to extend the period of detention should be for me to take.
The powers of arrest in Clause 7 largely concern matters closely related to the powers to make exclusion orders which essentially depend upon decisions of the executive. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to make these matters dependent on any form of judicial determination.
Clause 8, with paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, empowers the Secretary of State to

make an order providing for the examination of travellers entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland. The object of the examination is to determine, first, whether a person appears to be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; secondly, whether he is already subject to an exclusion order; and, thirdly, whether he has committed an offence in connection with exclusion orders. Examining officers may be police or immigration officers, but it will fall mainly to the police, on the basis of existing ports units, to enforce what is a security rather than an immigration control.
Clause 8 enables powers to be given to examining officers to search people under examination and to arrest and detain them, if necessary. Copies of a draft order have been made available to hon. Members. It contains provisions parallel with those in the Immigration Act. Such provisions include obligations on travellers to produce documents, if required.
The order will relate only to Great Britain. But a further order will be made as soon as possible making similar provision for Northern Ireland. There is nothing in the new provisions which makes it necessary for the police to operate the control comprehensively in the sense of subjecting every traveller to a thorough examination. The control can be operated to the extent that seems appropriate in the circumstances at the time. It is not the intention, at any rate initially, that travellers between Great Britain and Ireland should be required to carry passports, but it is inevitable that wholly innocent people will occasionally be subjected to a certain amount of inconvenience. I believe that people will be prepared to accept that in present circumstances.
Since I made my statement on Monday, we have been in communication with the Irish Government through diplomatic channels with a view to arranging further talks on co-operation regarding security in the light of the provisions in the Bill.
I do not think that anyone would wish these exceptional powers to remain in force a moment longer than is necessary. The Bill, therefore, provides that the powers shall expire in six months unless renewed by affirmative parliamentary approval of an order of the Secretary of State. It would be possible at the end


of that period, or any subsequent period of six months, to continue parts of the Act and to drop others. I will also keep under review whether the Act as a whole, or parts of it, while continuing to be essentially necessary, have been shown to offer a clear case for amendment.
In bringing forward these proposals I have tried to steer between two dangers, both of them real. The first is that we fail to take effective and practical steps which are available to us to deal as effectively as we can with terrorism. The second is that if we over-react we risk doing serious damage to our respect for human freedom and dignity.
I believe that the course that I am proposing in very difficult circumstances steers us as safely as it reasonably can through these twin dangers.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Opposition are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the Bill. He has enabled us, in the inevitably short time that we have for this study of the subject, to understand a little more clearly some of the implications of what is proposed.
Some of the aspects of the nightmare that has been Ulster's daily life for several years have now spread more widely. We think of the succession of horrors that have precipitated the Bill. The powers sought are distasteful, but protection of the public makes the Bill necessary. National security must, with due care for civil liberties, now take priority.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke, with some interruptions, for something less than half an hour, and every minute of it, from the point of view of the House, was thoroughly worth while. I do not think that I should serve the interests of the House if I took an equal amount of time to go in general over the Bill. We have a packed Order Paper, and the questions that have to be raised are, in most cases, very detailed and require thorough technical examination. Therefore I propose to speak very briefly and raise only some general issues so that, subject to the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the House we can leave the maximum time for the Committee stage and for the Government still to get the Bill in time.
The essence of the judgment that the Government have had to make is, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly emphasised, a question of balance between national security and individual liberty. It appears to the Opposition at first sight that the Home Secretary has got the balance about right, but the time to examine this in detail will be in Committee. We welcome the fact that the Government are proposing that if the powers are still necessary the Bill will have to be renewed after six months, so we have a long-stop if anything is decided today which we find later to have been wrongly decided. We shall, therefore, help the Government to get the Bill as soon as is compatible with the necessary scrutiny of the important details.
A large number of hon. Members, not only on this side of the House, believe that the time has come to re-examine the question of capital punishment for murder by terrorism. I very much understand the strong feeling that there is in the country and among many of my hon. Friends. I think that all those who want to examine this subject carefully, and I imagine that that will include every hon. Member, should have the chance to hear the arguments for and against the reintroduction of capital punishment for terrorism. I emphasised on a previous occasion that I believe the arguments are very strong in both directions, and here again the House will have a difficult question of balance to decide. The Opposition therefore welcome the Government's decision to make a day available in the near future for a debate on this subject.
I now come to one general question before dealing with the contents of the Bill. The Home Secretary rightly emphasised the vital role of the police in protecting the public, but the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, in its last paragraph, is almost disingenuous in its reference to the manpower implications of what the Government, in our view rightly, propose.
Surely the Government must appreciate that the Bill and what is involved in it are bound to impose a considerable extra burden on police manpower, and we know that the police are substantially below strength generally, and dramatically below strength in the big cities. When the figures were last reported there was,


I think, a national shortfall of about 12 per cent., and a shortfall in London and Birmingham of nearer 20 per cent.
We should like to hear later in the proceedings what the Government propose about police manpower, because it is essential, if the Bill is to be made effective, that the police should not have to draw strength from elsewhere, at a time when the crime rate is rising, to carry out the obligations imposed upon them by this legislation. We ask the Government also to give us a report on the progress of the working party that we understand has been set up in connection with the special constabulary, which, in the Government's view—and in ours, too—has a complementary role to play to that of the police.
There are several questions upon which we shall be focusing in our amendments and which I should like briefly to mention to the House. The Home Secretary, rightly, is diffident about the use of the proscription powers which constitute Part I of the Bill. He is limiting his use of the proscription powers to terrorist bodies whose purposes are connected with Northern Ireland. We recognise the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman calls the clear and present danger of the IRA as the predominant guide in this legislation, but we ask the Home Secretary to consider whether it may be possible, in this age of terrorism, that other bodies without connection with Northern Ireland may, under cover of apparent Northern Irish outrages, contribute their own terrorism to the national scene. If that be so, the powers of the Bill are sharply limited, and the protection of the public may require that the Government should consider whether to extend their powers to proscribe bodies that carry out terrorism even if they cannot be connected immediately with Northern Ireland. We do not press this view strongly upon the Government because we must, inevitably, be extremely diffident about suggesting an extension of the severe powers that the Bill embodies, but we ask the Government to consider that.
Secondly, at a time when the right of assembly for IRA purposes is very properly and sharply restricted under Clause 1, it would surely be wrong for members of a proscribed organisation to be given a national, and perhaps even

international, platform by way of the media. In answer to questions following his statement earlier this week the Home Secretary rightly emphasised the delicacy of the slope upon which we might find ourselves if we sought by legislation to restrict the freedom of expression on the media. There is an amendment—not backed officially by the Opposition—on which this subject will be able to be discussed, but we for our part would be much happier if the Home Secretary could undertake himself to see the editors and those responsible for the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority and discuss with them whether there is any self-restricting ordinance that they might impose upon themselves compatible with the proscriptions in the Bill. Of course we do not seek to restrict the reporting of events, but we do seek to deny a platform to those who would be in bodies that are proscribed by the Bill.
An intensely complicated set of questions arise from what appear to be differential deportation powers; that is to say, the power for the first time, as far as we can see, under the Bill for citizens of the United Kingdom to be moved compulsorily from one part of the United Kingdom to another. The position is extremely complicated, and a number of amendments on the Notice Paper are connected with it. When we consider this in Committee we shall hope to understand the Government's view of the necessity for what seems to be a power to deport United Kingdom citizens from Great Britain to Ulster.
The Home Secretary rightly focused attention on the implications of the detention powers taken by the Bill. We shall want to examine this carefully, and we shall want to ask the Home Secretary whether it would be possible to provide for some administrative palliation of the longer detention powers such as would not obstruct the purposes of those powers in helping the police to carry out their duties.
Finally, we shall want to cross-examine the right hon. Gentleman—we shall be able to do this on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill"—on the balance of advantage in connection with the introduction of identity cards or travel documents.
The best thing that I can do for the House is to leave as much time for other hon. Members as possible, so that we can


get down to detail on this important Bill. We, and I am sure all hon. Members, hope that it will, as the right hon. Gentleman expressed the thought, enable the police and the public together to eradicate terrorism in this country.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: Mr. Brian Walden (Birmingham, Ladywood) rose——

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. Could the House be assisted, Mr. Speaker? The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has set an example of brevity and said that many of the matters involved in the Bill can be raised when amendments are debated. Because of the hurried way in which the Bill has been brought together, amendments have been processed to a very late hour. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has not been able to consider all the amendments proffered. Would it be of assistance if some indication could be given about some of the later amendments, as to whether or not they will be selected, as that will obviously help hon. Members to circumscribe their Second Reading speeches?

Mr. Speaker: Two points arise out of that. The first is the desire of the House to get on reasonably quickly to the Committee stage, when these matters can be discussed in more detail. Second, I understand that a further list of selected amendments will be put up shortly.

Mr. Walden: It was in my constituency of Ladywood that the outrages occurred which have given rise to these measures. The whole House will, therefore, understand that no Member could be more anxious than I am that the Home Secretary should get the Bill through all its stages today. Therefore, the contribution that I can make to ensuring that he does so is to be as brief as possible.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) has just said. I intend to speak only on Second Reading and not on any amendment which may come up later, nor to raise any points from the Bill except perhaps one to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred.
No legislation could be more important than this, and there could be no purpose more important and vital than the purpose for which we are passing it. So I want to make one or two references to things which seem to be crucial, not only in terms of this legislation but in terms of the length of time for which it is likely to be on the statute book, which, I am sure the Home Secretary will agree, we all hope will be as short as possible. How long that is, however, depends on a number of things.
First, the justification for it, to my mind, is overwhelming, and I make no bones about the fact that I shall not listen with too much patience to any anxieties about whether this or that or the other civil right may temporarily be somewhat abridged. Of course civil rights will. We know that passing this kind of legislation means that they will. But the very first function of any Government is the maintenance of life and property, and there is real doubt in this country at the moment whether the Government have the means to ensure the maintenance of life and property.
Faced with a threat like that, faced with a public mood like that, there is absolutely nothing else that my right hon. Friend could have done. In view of his own magnificent reputation as a libertarian, he should not worry in the least that any of his old friends will misjudge him on this matter. He has done his duty, and he could not have done less.
Having said that, it is crucial that we in this country maintain standards of civilisation appropriate to the claims that we are making. We are not the animals that the terrorists are. It sometimes alarms me in some of my correspondence and some of the things that people say to me that so many people in this country, regrettably, under an understandable stress of emotion, wish to do things or to have things done which cannot conceivably be justified either morally or in terms of any benefit that they would give to the community.
It is the responsibility of this House not to do anything which will incite the populace either to intemperate feelings or to intemperate acts. Let us be frank. The overwhelming mood in my constituency, and I believe in my city, is one of vengeance. That is what is


really wanted. When people talk about the death penalty—I intend to say nothing about that because it is something that we shall be discussing at a later date—I do not think that the great majority of them are interested in whether it is a deterrent or not. What they want is revenge—a perfectly natural human emotion for which I do not particularly blame them.
Of course they want revenge for the unbelievable atrocity and carnage which was committed, but we may have to face a cruel fact—that vengeance and victory over the IRA might be two quite separate things. They might not be: they might be logically connected. Equally, they might not be logically connected. We in this House have the responsibility rationally to consider, if we decide that they are not logically connected, which we want—the vengeance or the victory. I am for the victory. I am prepared to forgo the vengeance.
I do not want us to do anything in regard to the Irish community which will add to our difficulties. However, I will at least say this. I have been counselling—indeed as many hon. Members will know, I have been begging—people in Birmingham to do nothing which will disgrace the city or inflict on the innocent punishment which should be reserved for the guilty. However, it is the moral responsibility of all in this country, and especially the Irish community, who have any information whatever which could be of use to the authorities to give it, and to do so absolutely unquestioningly, without a thought that they are doing something morally wrong. They would be doing something supremely morally right. There is an obligation on all Irishmen in this country who feel that they can assist in any way to give that assistance.
That having been said, there is an obligation on us to ensure that nothing is done or said here or anywhere else where we have responsibility or authority which can lead any of our fellow citizens to take what would be intemperate, unreasonable or dangerous action towards any Irishman in England who has no connection with the IRA. I am referring not simply to acts of violence. I do not want the Irish people living in this country to begin to feel that their

citizenship, their way of life, is somehow different from that of the rest of us.
The reason is not only that I feel that it would be morally wrong but that I do not want the IRA to win, and if Irish people in this country come to feel like that, the IRA will have won. These terorists need a certain pool of approval, or at least of apathy, in which to swim, and it is not our responsibility to give it to them. It is our responsibility to deny it to them. So I hope that no one will do anything which will widen the breach which already exists, to be frank, between many English people in Birmingham and the Irish community. On the contrary, they will do, everything to try to heal it.
I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East when he talks about the media giving publicity to the IRA or indeed to any terrorist organisation. However, I should sound a note of warning, and I know that I shall not carry the majority of the House with me. Some of the things which have been said in the House about the broadcast which gave rise to the comment were not just. They were not just to the lady who conducted the interview and they were not just as to the impact of the interview.
Do not let us be so foolish as to deny ourselves an understanding of the mind of the enemy. Very well—if the thing is intemperate, if it plainly, as it were, is a party political broadcast for terrorists, certainly one expects the IBA and the BBC to ensure that it does not go out, but we must not do as so often we did before the Second World War, and simply refuse to understand our opponents and their mentality. That will not do us any good if we want to beat them, and I insist again that the whole purpose of the Bill is to assist in that process.
Lastly, we cannot write off what happened in my constituency as an isolated act or consider it as such. It is part of a whole climate of violence that has grown up in the world. Worse than that, it is part of a disgraceful attitude towards law which has grown up in this country.
I hope that now there can be nobody who has any doubt whatsoever that the observance of the law is the protection of minorities and that law and its observance is the very basis of democracy. I hope that we shall be spared any condonation of lawless violence on the ground that the people who are doing it


have some sort of case. That sort of talk has encouraged the climate of opinion in which the IRA has received support that it ought not to have received.
The job of my right hon. Friend when he gets the Bill, as he will—I know that the House will give it to him as quickly as it can—will be to use the time that we have given him to ensure that the root cause of our problem, which lies with the IRA in Northern Ireland, is in fact rooted out so that we can get rid of this measure as swiftly as possible. Until then, thank God for it. Thank God for my right hon. Friend. I hope that the House will pass the measure as expeditiously as it can.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Mates: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye so that I can address the House for the first time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) has been describing himself as a newcomer to the House as the new, fatter model of Jeffrey Archer. If I were to pursue the same analogy, I should have to call myself the new and entirely reconstructed model of Joan Quennell.
I am aware that time is at a premium in the debate today, so I hope that my constituents in Petersfield will forgive me if I do not recite the customary travelogue of my constituency, beautiful though it is, but proceed almost directly to what I want to say about the subject we are debating.
First, it is my pleasure as well as my privilege to pay tribute to Joan Quennell for her service here during the past 15 years. I was made well aware during the election campaign of the great esteem in which she was held in Petersfield and of the warmth and affection with which many constituents of all political persuasions spoke of the work she had done in the community there.
I am sure that the House will also wish me to pay tribute to her long service here, both as a back bencher and as a member of Mr. Speaker's Panel of Chairmen.
I wish to make two points about the measures to combat terrorism which will be discussed during this debate. Let me

say straight away that I warmly welcome the proposals which the Home Secretary has brought forward in the Bill. They are necessary, they are sensible, and I think that there will be no resentment by the British people of any marginal effect that these measures may have on individuals who may suffer some hardship as a result. I am perfectly certain that the vast majority of the people of this country are only too ready to suffer some personal inconvenience if it means ridding our society of the cancer of terrorism.
As some hon. Members may know, I came to the House almost direct from the Army, in which I served for 20 years. One of the features I noticed during my service in Northern Ireland was the ready way in which many decent citizens are prepared to co-operate fully with the security forces, although they are personally substantially inconvenienced, in order to play their part in helping to get the situation there under control.
However, I do not believe that the proposed measures go far enough. The Home Secretary spoke on Monday about identity cards and said, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that he was not satisfied that the direct effect would be worth the trouble involved. The right hon. Gentleman said also that identity cards were eminently forgeable documents.
I question that. I have here an identity card which I used for two years during my recent tour as an exchange officer for the British Army to the army of the United States of America. This document is cheap, it is simple to issue, and it is virtually unforgeable. It bears my photograph, my signature and my fingerprint on it, and it was issued to me in a permanently sealed, laminated, tough folder within the space of about 10 minutes.
I have heard it said that to be required to give one's fingerprint is an infringement of the liberty of the innocent. I gave my fingerprint to no one. The only mark I made is on this card, and should I have been required to produce a print for the purpose of comparison I would have made one mark only on a piece of paper, which would then have been returned to me.
I most strongly urge the Home Secretary to look again at this problem, because it would be of the greatest value to the upholders of law and order, both in Northern Ireland and here in Great Britain, and for those seeking to regulate travel between Great Britain and either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
I hope that my argument will persuade the Home Secretary to change his mind over this matter, as I believe that it would be worth his while to include such proposals, for which his Department must have contingency plans, in his Bill, even at the last minute. They would gain a large measure of support.
My major disappointment, having read the Bill, is that the Home Secretary has not seen fit to include any reference to or measures concerning the punishment of those convicted of acts of terrorism. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we will discuss the whole question of capital punishment at a later date and that he would prefer this course to debating the subject of punishment in the immediate aftermath of any incident such as the Birmingham bombs. That was a sentiment which was echoed at Question Time by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
I disagree with that, for two reasons. First, if we go on at the rate we are going now we shall almost always be in the aftermath of such barbaric incidents. An illustration of this is the answer by the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), which is published in today's OFFICIAL REPORT and which shows that there were 30 crimes of bombing since 1st January of this year—almost one a week—that 40 people had been killed, and that 396 people—more than one person for every day of this year—have been injured in bomb outrages.
Secondly, and more important, I believe that the great majority of the British people at this time do not want us talking about taking action. They want us to take action. Moreover, I do not think that it would be helpful to discuss this particular aspect of punishment in the context of capital punishment as a whole. I know that there are many deeply held views of personal conscience on the whole question of executing

criminals who have committed murder. Let me say at this point that I am not in favour of a general re-introduction of the death penalty for murder, but I do not think that it is right to consider the sort of people who indiscriminately slaughter totally innocent citizens in the context of other criminals. I believe that they are the enemies of the State, and, as such, I believe that we should consider ourselves to be at war with them. They certainly consider that they are at war with us. It is in this context of enemies that they should be ruthlessly sought out and destroyed. After all, these enemies are employing the tactics of indiscriminately taking the life of our innocent citizens, which makes the case immeasurably stronger for us to employ the same measure, although judicially, against them.
If we look at the matter in this light, all of the other questions which are properly raised in the wider issue of capital punishment as a whole, such as deterrence, the repugnance of taking a human life as retribution for a civil crime, and other moral issues and considerations, become quite irrelevant.
The Home Secretary also spoke on Monday of the law of treason and referred to the remarks of Lord Hailsham. We know that the law at present is obscure and archaic and that it has fallen into disuse, but is that any reason for simply dismissing it? It surely cannot be beyond the wit of the House to amend it and make it apply to the new sort of enemy that exists in our midst, provided that we have the will to do so. I believe that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that this should be done.
Every aspect of this proposal will have to be examined very deeply, not least the possible kidnapping and reprisals if terrorists were to be executed. There is a very real danger that members of the judiciary, politicians and members of the security forces and their wives and families would be at risk to this sort of reprisal. One need only look at terrorist operations outside these shores to realise that the imprisonment of convicted terrorists is an open invitation to hostage-taking as a bargain for their release. It is a matter of some surprise that we have not yet been faced with this situation in Britain.
I appreciate the urgency with which the Government rightly wish to see the Bill become law, but it is my profound hope that some way can be found today for the House to express its views on the matters I have raised. This is not an occasion for the deferring of difficult and unpleasant decisions. It is an occasion when I believe that the vast majority of the British public want their elected leaders to stand up and be counted for what they believe in.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: The whole House will want me to congratulate the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) upon his vigorous, fluent and thoughtful contribution. It is not often that we have speeches which so clearly show the impress of the experience on an hon. Member before he came into the House. The impress of the hon. Member's military experience was clearly implanted upon his speech, and I am sure that he will be making similar valuable contributions many times in the future. The whole House will listen to him with great attention.
I can recall in September 1971, as can no doubt many other hon. Members who were in that Parliament, a speech by Dick Crossman. It was an unpopular speech advocating that we should get out of Ireland. He said then, speaking of Ulster,
This is not a natural State of any kind at all. It is an artificial political product created to destroy political rights and to maintain one group of people in permanent power. By its very essence it denies every principle of democracy and always has from the time this House of Commons created it. If we use our troops to say that it is our duty to defend to the last breath … then in my view we are fighting an unjust war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd September 1971; Vol. 823, c. 244.]
It was because of our awareness of the discrimination which existed within the Ulster society that all parties made a bid to bring democracy to Northern Ireland, to make certain if we could that we brought about power sharing. Therefore, when we consider the Bill it is well to remember that the fundamental cause of the present difficulties is that the industrial strike of the Ulster majority, the type of behaviour of which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) would fully dis-

approve, thwarted the declared will of this House and the declared wishes of the whole of the British people. Now that selfsame recalcitrant group protests its citizenship of Britain but refuses to accept the obligations of democratic citizenship. With a rare insouciance, it now expects the people of Britain not only to send its young men to die in Northern Ireland, not only to continue to dole out huge subventions, but to submit peacefully to the most severe limitations of its civil liberties that have occurred in peace time Britain certainly in this century.
It does not become this House or our people to formulate policies or to approve of Acts that are creatures of blackmail. But, while we are affecting to be standing up to the IRA, the reality of the position is that our fundamental stance is dictated by the fear that if we insist either that democracy must come to Northern Ireland or that we must get out, the obdurate majority will stage a pogrom. To declare ostentatiously in this House through this Bill that we will not submit to the IRA psychopaths whilst cravenly submitting, as we are, to the implied or explicit threat of the majority group in Ulster is, in my view, a totally unacceptable approach.
The draftsmen of the Bill have certainly acted with rare speed. That is not surprising since they have had plenty of precedents——

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the hon. Member not realise that the Roman Catholic Cardinal and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Londonderry have asked the people of Northern Ireland to stand up against the IRA? In view of that, how can he go on with this utter tripe that he is coming out with?

Mr. Abse: The hon. Member will also realise that the Roman Catholic Archbishop's statement, which I have read, has indicated that the fundamental cause of all the troubles is the injustices which have been continued and are defended in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Jill Knight: No, it is not.

Mr. Abse: As I was saying, the draftsmen have had an easy task. They have plently of precedents. It has been simple for them to turn back to the 1939 legislation, which, of course, was intended—if I


may remind my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood—to be in existence for only two years. That legislation lasted 15 years. It was temporary legislation. The draftsmen had not only the benefit of that legislation but the benefit of legislation which applied under similar circumstances in Kenya, Palestine, Cyprus and Aden. There are remarkable analogies between that legislation and clauses in the Bill. We notice, for example, how in Cyprus there was the extension of capital punishment to what was then the new offence of consorting with terrorists. In the legislation for Kenya there was a massive attempt to control movements, and it led to about 4,500 arrests a month of people who were in breach of that law. None of that legislation was of any avail. It led only to one thing—to withdrawal. All this legislation was nothing but a precursor to the ultimate acceptance of the inevitable withdrawal. Why should this Bill not prove to be an equal vanity?
Is it not more likely rather than less likely that that will happen? Our measures, however stringent we may make them, however Draconian they may be, and however much a raging section of the Conservative Party may want to escalate still further the penalties even up to the ultimate death penalty, will only control events in the House of Commons. We cannot control legislation in the Dail. Of course, too, we have a large and worthy indigenous Irish community who, repelled as they are by the IRA activities, are bound to see the Bill not only as a part of the war against the IRA but as a weapon to maintain an unjustified status quo in Northern Ireland. Is that a happy augury to suggest that we are likely to get more success out of this legislation than we derived from similar legislation in the colonies?
Further, this large and worthy section of our community will, too uncomfortably, discover 'ere long that all that will lie between this legislation and second-class citizenship is the integrity and liberality of a rare Home Secretary, who, whatever his impeccable intentions, cannot and will not—even with the aid of this body whose names will be known but which will act clandestinely, but whose procedures will not be examined—really be able to scrutinise every action, every search, every arrest made by the

over-zealous at the prompting of any mendacious informer.
That background is no augury to this Bill. I do not believe that the Bill will succeed in its objectives. Nor must we forget when we consider whether it is likely to save lives or whether it will lead to escalating violence—and this Bill is unfortunately distracting us to deal with symptoms and not causes—that there is in Northern Ireland a lost generation which is the very material to provide recruits for the Provos. For six years they have been brought up in the best possible breeding ground for delinquent behaviour. Now, within their distorted sub-culture, the conditions exist which will give them a social sanction to act out their criminality. In examining the Bill it is distressing to see that we are not only taking away rights from adults in the powers relating to arrest; we are taking away the rights of children, too.
It will be seen that even the Children and Young Persons Act is mentioned in the Bill, because it is already clearly anticipated, as it should be—because it is what happened in Cyprus when EOKA recruited the young—that it is highly probable that as a result of the passage of this Bill we shall find the same type of recruitment going on in Northern Ireland.
I will not go into the details of the legislation. It is the old story of hurried legislation passed in the white heat of an emotional aftermath—more haste less rights.
As in every colonial situation, repressive legislation is no substitute for policy. We have no policy whatever. None is coming from Conservative Members, none exists on the Front Benches. What are we waiting for—Godot? We are hopefully waiting for a Convention, waiting for decisions to come out of it. Everyone knows our hopes will be proved illusory. I repeat, we have no policy.
Those who say that this is not a colonial situation are deceiving themselves. It has become increasingly clear that as far as they exist at all the loyalties that come from many in Northern Ireland are to yesterday's Britain, certainly not to today's We should regret but accept as inevitable that our Britain can no longer contain


those who flout our contemporary commitment to full parity of esteem for all religious bodies, all races within the kingdom.
Those who, like the white Rhodesians, refuse to accept that principle must accept their self-determined destiny and not expect the British people to follow them down their doomed paths. The brutal fact is that this is the final, and perhaps most complicated, disengagement from Empire that Britain has to face. The Bill certainly does not provide either of the options open to us to deal with the dilemma. The harsh real options we have are to get out of Northern Ireland in an orderly manner or to get out in disarray.
There is a limit to the threshold of tolerance of our people. If we do not now commence a phased withdrawal of troops and financial subvention we shall do so in disarray, in response to public clamour that will be no less than has come from the anguish of the Birmingham atrocities. Instead of pursuing this legislation, it would be wiser to face the sad inevitability, and hope that the majority group in Northern Ireland, on seeing our determination to refuse to subsidise any longer a non-democratic society, will, out of self-interest, change its tune. If it does not, then, with Eire, we must surely use the present barren financial aid to provide assistance to a minority who, out of well-founded fear, may have to be re-housed and rehabilitated out of Belfast.
What I am convinced of is that this Bill will provide, even for the hard-pressed people of Birmingham, only a temporary catharsis for those who naturally feel outraged and indignant. In the end the British people will insist that they are not content merely to be scapegoats for all the paranoid extremists on both sides. It is wiser to face the harsh truths and commence a phased withdrawal.
The nation does not want escalating violence. It does not want repressive legislation. What it wants is a policy, and it is the duty of the Government, since there is no policy from the Opposition, to bring in as quickly as possible a new move, a new political initiative. The country wants it, and if we fail to provide it all that can happen is that Nor-

thern Ireland will end in disarray, with all the pogroms that all of us in our hearts are constantly fearing.

5.7 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) never makes a speech in this House which is not carefully prepared—some might say over-carefully prepared. What he had to say to us today bore a sense of unreality to those who know something about some of the difficulties in Northern Ireland. The House will listen with greater attention to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) in a striking maiden speech based on his experience in Northern Ireland as a soldier. It will listen also with greater attention to what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), who, as we know, always presents with eloquence and the greatest of good sense the issues which are before us.
It was inevitable that the Government would introduce this Bill. They were, however, in a dilemma. I would have preferred to see the Bill being introduced without making it exclusive to Northern Ireland. Although I can see the reasons behind this—and I listened with great care to the Home Secretary—it would have been better if the House had faced up to the short Title of this Bill, which is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions).
I do not believe that IRA terrorists will be the only terrorists whom this country will have to face. By presenting the Bill in this way we have emphasised the de facto different status of Northern Ireland. I wonder whether this is advantageous at the moment. The Government had to act swiftly, for what has happened over the past few weeks and the past few incidents is that the people of this country are beginning to realise just what other citizens of the United Kingdom have been experiencing daily, for weeks, months, and years. It is only this situation which brings home to the people of this country what terrorism is all about.
But there are other groups. Some of us have suffered from the attention of these other groups. We have had our homes attacked by them. It should not be forgotten that the problems of the urban guerrilla, of the hijacker and of


the terrorist exist in this country as in other countries, quite apart from the situation in Northern Ireland, which will be fed by others so that they will be able to accomplish what ultimately would be the abdication by the State of its responsibilities and the breakdown, as the hon. Member for Ladywood said, of the whole system of law under which civilised society can exist.
There comes a time, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledged, when with repugnance and with reluctance, some of the rights and freedoms which ordinarily people accept and demand must be surrendered in exchange for the defence of the State against men, sometimes very few, and women, again sometimes very few, who together are determined to break down the society and the civilisation of the State. Although I welcome this Bill and although I shall support it, I was hoping that it would be more extensive and would apply not only to Northern Ireland.
I differ from my noble Friend Lord Hailsham—he is my friend in every sense of the word—on his view about trying such persons for the crime of treason. I had to review this matter when as Attorney-General I had to deal with the London car bombings. It is the duty of the prosecutor to apply contemporary law to fit the alleged facts and to charge those concerned with the appropriate crime. It is certainly not right for the prosecutor to seek to charge a different offence because it carries a different penalty. At the time of the last Fenian attacks upon this country with explosives in 1883 Gallegher and the other persons involved were not charged with treason. They were members of the Fenian brotherhood who came to this country from the United States, and did so with the intention of procuring the freedom of Ireland by force. They came to this country with the intention of destroying public buildings, such as the House of Commons, by the use of nitroglycerine and other explosives. They were detected, but they were charged not with high treason under the Treason Act 1351 but under the Treason Felony Act 1848. The sentence under that Act was only life imprisonment.
Similarly in the Deasy case, the Irishmen who came from Cork were not tried for treason, for the Treason Act was

conceived at a different time and in different conditions. It is now 620 years old. It provides for
imagining the death of the King.
and for
slaying a justice of assize".
It certainly includes the levying of war. But the concept of treason in that Act was of a rebellious assembly and armed men within the concept of war of those times. In my opinion, it would be irresponsible and wrong for a prosecutor to apply that concept to these offences when they can and should be dealt with under the Explosive Substances Act. If Parliament altered the law of treason and brought it up to date the prosecutor, if so minded, certainly could apply the new law as enacted by the legislature. But until such time I believe that we must deal with these people under the law as it is. They should be dealt with in these present cases as they have been in the past.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On the question of levying war there are a number of precedents. If I remember correctly, the Dumaree case is such a precedent. Treason was found against a number of men who were concerned with burning down two houses of those who were members of the Baptist sect. In that case a charge of treason was brought and they were convicted. Why is it that we should not indict on the issue of levying war if it is levied by subjects of the Crown or by our own people and not by Americans or foreigners? Is the Birmingham case not an example of treason? To indict for treason would be good at law, would it not?

Sir P. Rawlinson: The Dumaree case was tried in 1710, 160 years before the Gallagher case and the Deasy case, which are the most apt when we consider the use of explosives. Dumaree was a man who put himself at the head of a rabble and marched with the rabble with the intention of burning down the dissenters' meeting places.
By 1848 the law had to be changed and the Treason Felony Act was introduced. That provided for not the death sentence but life imprisonment. That was followed by the Explosive Substances Act 1883. Unless and until Parliament changes the


Treason Act and applies a modern principle of treason, I believe that the courts and the prosecutor should rely on the modern legislation presently before us.
I want next to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department the traffic in arms between this country and Northern Ireland via the port of Belfast. I draw attention to the hiring of motor vehicles and the packing behind the trims of doors of Armalite rifles for passage to Northern Ireland. The rifles are delivered and gelignite is brought back in the same way. This must be stopped, and could be stopped, by further supervision at the ports, by greater control of the vehicles passing between Northern Ireland and England and by insisting upon documents being produced. It has come to light recently that such traffic is taking place. Moreover, greater supervision and greater care in the control of industrial explosives should be taken. We should pay far greater attention to such matters. Often gelignite is kept in certain places without proper attention and care being exercised over it.
Although I do not believe that the Northern Ireland problem is basically religious, I have found that both Protestants and Catholics who go to Ireland from England seem to be alienated by what they see of some of their faith when they get across the water. As an English Catholic I welcome and support what the hierarchy of the bishops of England and Wales have said in support of Archbishop Dwyer. I confess that over the years I would have preferred a sterner attitude to be taken by the Primate of Ireland. I would have preferred him to speak more. But it does not lie in the mouths of those of other denominations who year in and year out have insulted and abused the faith of many of their fellow citizens to criticise, and we should not forget the grievous responsibilities of those who have levied abuse and insult over the years.
But now is a time when all religious leaders could play a considerable part in the Northern Ireland situation. I should like to see greater effort on the part of the hierarchy everywhere to prevent those who pay their respects to a person who is dead from in any way seeming to support the evil acts which that person has committed.

There is still room for leadership among the clergy of all denominations on both sides of the water to help in the solution of this problem.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I understand the deep feelings of anger and emotion as this debate takes place. A great tragedy has struck Birmingham. Is this legislation the answer to the problem? With my knowledge of terrorism and terrorists in Northern Ireland, I do not believe that it will lead in any way to the defeat of the IRA.
I am not saying that I am opposed to the Bill. I understand that the Government have a duty to take every possible step to prevent such a tragedy recurring in Birmingham or any other city within the United Kingdom. However, time after time in the old Stormont and latterly in this House we have passed emergency and temporary legislation, but when we consider the continuing tragedy taking place in Northern Ireland it will be seen that all that legislation has not brought violence to an end.
Since the terrible carnage in Birmingham only last week, 10 people have been brutally murdered in Belfast, and they included both Catholics and Protestants. With all the legislation that we have over there, there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that it took the tragedy of Birmingham to make the British people and the British Parliament realise what we have had to live through these past five years.
If the IRA is to be banned, other organisations should be banned as well. It is evident that there are extremist organisations in Northern Ireland which are opposed to the IRA and have emerged from the Protestant majority population and are guilty of dastardly deeds as well. Even from the logical point of view, it appears that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will find himself in some difficulty unless these other organisations are proscribed along with the IRA in Great Britain.
Under Northern Ireland legislation, the Government have proscribed certain elements within the UDA and organisations such as the Ulster Freedom Fighters, which have admitted responsibility for serious crimes, the Red Hand Commandos, which have admitted responsibility


for murders, and the Ulster Protestant Action Group, although no one really knows whether this group exists, but it has claimed over the telephone responsibility for a number of crimes. If all these organisations are banned in Northern Ireland, it is only logical that they should be banned in Great Britain.
Hon. Members have spoken about the traffiic in arms between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not limited to the provision of arms for the IRA. Many people in this country belonging to the Ulster Defence Association are in prison for having engaged in arms traffic. In view of all this, it is surely eminently sensible that the Home Secretary, if he is going to ban one organisation, should ban all terrorist organisations involved in the Northern Ireland situation.
Many thousands of Irish people have lived in Great Britain for many years and have contributed a great deal to the wealth of the nation and to the democracy which exists here. Many of them will now feel that they are being slighted in some way by this Bill in that it is aimed at one particular organisation to the total exclusion of others. Yet we must remember that the majority of Irish people who have engaged in terrorism in Great Britain have come from Northern Ireland. Only a small minority have had connections with the Republic.
Even if one tries to compare these terrible happenings, one is reminded that Dublin has had the greatest single tragedy in this whole campaign of violence, when 31 people were brutally massacred by car bomb explosions and hundreds were injured. One cannot say that the Irish people are in any way giving their support to the IRA as a violent organisation.
I know that many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will feel, after this Bill, that for the first time they are being put by this Parliament into the category of being Irish in the island of Ireland, because the Bill makes it clear that people can be excluded or deported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
If a person is excluded or deported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland on suspicion that he is connected with a terrorist organisation, the order will be signed by the Home Secretary. But does it not, in effect, mean that once the

man involved has travelled to Northern Ireland he is liable to be arrested and interned immediately he lands? It is only logical that if a person is excluded from Great Britain on the ground that he is suspected of giving support to an illegal organisation he must be interned in Northern Ireland. We have been told today by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, that there is to be a further six-months extension of the emergency provisions. The blunt fact is—and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can whitewash over it—that the British people, who, understandably, find internment repugnant, will be able, by this Bill, to get these persons interned in Northern Ireland instead of Great Britain. The British people will be able to ease their consciences.
I do not think that this says very much for the loyalty and allegiance of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party and its so-called "United Kingdom citizenship". Ulster Unionists have every right to feel that they are being given, deliberately or not, second-class citizenship within the United Kingdom. I hope that they feel as badly about it as the minority in Northern Ireland have felt for 50 years, during which there was no doubt whatever that they had second-class citizenship.
We have detention in Northern Ireland. People have been kept in detention on suspicion of being involved with illegal organisations. After a period of detention, their cases have been brought before the commissioners in Long Kesh, and many of them have been released—on condition that they did not stay in Northern Ireland but went to some other part of the United Kingdom.
I know many cases in which young lads, having been interned or detained—whether they actually had any connection with illegal organisations is open to question—have been released on condition that they went to London or Birmingham or somewhere else in Great Britain.
What will the situation be now? We are to have exclusion orders from Great Britain. Those excluded will, when they get back to Northern Ireland, be interned. Eventually, they will come before the commissioners in Northern Ireland and will be released on condition that they get out of Northern Ireland. I cannot see this law operating very effectively.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will tell me, "If we get proof that the UFF or the UDA are engaged in terrorist activities in Great Britain, we will issue an order bringing them within the ambit of the Bill." But by taking such an attitude he is, in effect, saying that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland knows all this very well because he has had to proscribe the UFF, the Red Hand Commandos and others. They are still proscribed. Is Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom? We should know once and for all. I do not know. I have considerable doubt at this time.
If extremist organisations which are engaged in a massive campaign of assassination are proscribed in Northern Ireland, they should be proscribed in this part of the United Kingdom. I understand the necessity for legislation to try to curb the activities of arsonists and murderers here, as in Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that this Bill will have the effect that is desired. What is even more dangerous is that it will lead to a very dangerous erosion of the civil liberties of the people of this country.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House is engaged on a difficult operation, that is, legislating in haste and under the immediate pressure of indignation on matters which touch the fundamental liberties of the subject; for both haste and anger are ill counsellors, especially when one is legislating for the rights of the subject.
There is no doubt how far-reaching is the impact of the Bill upon those rights; and that applies to all three parts of the Bill. It applies to Part I, with the principle of the proscription of organisations and making membership of an organisation a criminal offence in itself. That is not without precedent, but it is certainly not in accordance with custom and expectations in this country. There are the extended provisions for detention without trial in Part III. But, above all, there is an almost total innovation in Part II of the Bill. So far as Clause 3 in Part II refers to persons who are British subjects and citizens of the United

Kingdom and Colonies it indicates that it shall be possible, so long as the Bill is law, for a United Kingdom citizen in the United Kingdom to be ordered to remove from one part of the United Kingdom to another, or to be forbidden to remove at his own free will from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
It is hardly possible to imagine a more severe interference with individual liberty than for freedom of movement to be impeded in this way. There is a precedent of some sort, though I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, wisely I think, did not refer to it in introducing the Bill, in the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939. But that is in many ways not a very helpful parallel as no doubt he found. At that time the constitution of the British Isles was radically different from what it is today, the citizens of the Irish Republic being at that time, perhaps unwisely, regarded in the law of this country as British subjects.
Therefore, we are legislating upon the most fundamental matters and we are doing so in haste and under pressure.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of an even more disturbing precedent? The proposed legislation represents precisely the kind of power exercised by the South African Government, and that power is one of the most detested powers of the South African Government.

Mr. Powell: I do not think that any Member of the House will need the distastefulness of the contents of the Bill to be emphasised or proved. That is probably common ground. But I am glad that the Government have shown, as far as they can within the limits of time, that they are open to consider the Bill, as a Bill can only be considered, in detail during the Committee stage, which is to go on as long as is necessary in order for the House to be properly satisfied of what it is doing.
Subject to that, when the Home Secretary comes to the House and says that in his opinion for the safety of the subject some such Bill as this is necessary and that it will result in the saving of life and the avoidance of outrage if legislation of this kind is adopted, the burden of proof lies upon those who would oppose


it. Certainly, there would be no disposition to reject it in principle among those who represent the constituencies in Northern Ireland which have borne for many years now the brunt of the same attack upon the United Kingdom and its integrity which fell so heavily on Birmingham last week.
I do not expect that the Home Secretary is in any doubt as to the limited effect to be expected from this legislation. It is entitled a Prevention of Terrorism Bill. That is an almost humorous optimism, if humour in such a context were possible. A Prevention of Terrorist Acts Bill it may be. That we all hope it will be. But terrorism itself is not to be prevented by legislation of this kind. Terrorism cannot be prevented simply by arresting and punishing those who commit acts of terrorism, necessary of course though that is. Terrorism can be dealt with only when its true nature is recognised. Terrorism is a form of warfare. Though a warfare conducted by methods which are peculiarly horrible in themselves and peculiarly difficult to deal with, warfare it remains; and like any other form of warfare, it can be brought to an end only when one side or the other is convinced that the war cannot be won—in this case when the terrorists are convinced that the war cannot be won.
Reference has already been made several times in the debate to the statement issued, and carried by the Press today, by the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, in which, after expressing their abhorrence of what has happened, they say that
injustice … is the cause of violence.
What a happy world we would live in if terrorism were caused by injustice. There may be cases, somewhere, somehow, where that is the relationship of cause and effect; but normally the relationship of cause and effect is very different. Normally terrorism causes injustice. Terrorism is intended to wreak injustice. Terrorism is designed to bring about that which would not otherwise be tolerated or envisaged, simply by acts of violence, acts which appear to be senseless, but, in fact, are ruthlessly directed towards achieving specific aims.
That is why the Home Secretary, when he spoke on this subject last Friday, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) were right when they

recognised this larger dimension beyond the Bill, a dimension without recognition of which the Bill and all such measures are likely to be futile. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said:
the Government's success against terrorism will depend upon their demonstrating in all their policies the will to win."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1672.]
The Home Secretary said:
I do not think that one can or should deal with this situation by appeasement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1676.]
These are correct analyses, because the very aim of terrorism—of the form of warfare which it represents—is to force its victims onward step by step; and at each step it forces its victims to go in the direction they do not intend, the terrorism itself gathers strength by encouragement.
What is above all essential in legislating as we are invited to do today is to be sure that in the form of that legislation and in its administration we do nothing that will give comfort and encouragement to those against whom it is aimed. Here I found some observations of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) very pertinent, for if this legislation can be seen as further differentiating two parts of the United Kingdom—Great Britain and Northern Ireland—if it can be seen as in any way isolating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, it will be not illegitimate for the IRA to claim that Birmingham was not a failure which brought down upon its head this instrument of detection and control, but that Birmingham, after all, was a success which took it another stage further towards its object, the detachment by violence, by fear, of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, both in consideration of the Bill in detail and in its administration, to bear in mind throughout that their object can only be furthered by the Bill if on the face of it, and in the manner in which it is applied, it binds more closely together the various parts of the United Kingdom, and certainly Great Britain and Northern Ireland, instead of being used as a means of driving them apart.
That can be followed up in detail as we look at the successive provisions of the Bill; but I think that the principle at


which we should aim was well expressed in a motion which the House passed yesterday—it was not so well attended a House which passed it—when it took the Money Resolution to the Bill. I would like to quote the operative lines of the Money Resolution under which the Committee stage will take place, because they seem to me perfectly to illustrate what we should be doing and should be seen to be doing in the Bill.
The two objects of the Bill as there set out are:
the control of travel into and out of any part of the United Kingdom
and secondly,
the removal from any part of the United Kingdom, of persons subject to exclusion orders.
There is the central fact of which we should not lose sight: we are legislating here for the United Kingdom and we should be seen to legislate for the United Kingdom.
I agree again with the hon. Member for Belfast, West. It is my belief that Part I, even if this is not possible at once, should eventually be uniform in its application to all parts of the United Kingdom. If it is right that organisations should be proscribed in one part of this country, it is right that they should be proscribed in other parts of the country. If it is right that movement into and out of one part of the kingdom should be controlled, then reciprocally so should movement in and out of the rest of the kingdom.
I believe that if the Government in all their actions—in their actions during the rest of today's sitting and the manner in which the Bill is handled; in their actions in framing regulations under the Bill, for much may be done there, and something very helpful on this subject was said by the Home Secretary, if I understood it correctly; and in their actions in administering the Bill—maintain that even-handed justice and that common intention as between all parts of the kingdom, the Bill may in some measure have the effect which we all hope for it—of saving life rather than losing it.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Having been a Member for only a short time, I still feel something of a

stranger, sufficiently so to feel that my judgment of the House as a group of people might not be without some value.
On Monday the House was confronted, or at least it confronted itself, with an unusual event. My impression then was that this assembly was a frightened mob. That atmosphere persists today.
I am reminded of a piece of what is alleged to be wisdom which lawyers frequently serve up to me. They tell me, and they have told me so often that I must assume that they believe it, that hard cases make bad law. What happened in Birmingham last week was undoubtedly a hard case by any standards. It is undoubtedly also true that we are debating the Bill because of what happened last Thursday in Birmingham, and the outcome, it would seem, is almost predestined to be a piece of bad law.
I think, too, that all hon. and learned Members would push their piece of folk wisdom a bit further than saying that hard cases make bad law, and assure us that bad law brings the law into disrepute. That is what the House is doing now. It is laying the foundation of something which will have the effect of bringing the law into disrepute, partly for reasons which several hon. Members have already indicated, and partly because much of the measure will probably be inoperative and make fools of the people who are paid to implement the law.
In the wake of the Birmingham events, I ask myself why the House feels it necessary to bring the Bill before us, when it is called the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. I am advised by newspapers and so on that several arrests have been made and charges have been brought, which seems to suggest that not only are the law enforcement agencies in the Midlands superbly efficient but that the law as it stands, works very well.
I am assuming that the people who have been arrested are guilty, which is a reasonable thing to do at this stage. If they are subsequently found guilty, they will be sentenced, and they will not be given light sentences. Therefore, I ask myself what the House wants. The law enforcement agencies have demonstrated their efficiency.
The situation suggests its own answer. The House wants blood.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman asks what the House wants. How can it be described as satisfactory that people are arrested after the bombs have blown a large number of people apart? What the House and the country want is for that to be prevented, not for people to be caught and convicted afterwards.

Mr. Litterick: I am sure that the House will agree that the surest deterrent to criminals is the certainty of being caught. The law enforcement agencies of the West Midlands performed superbly over that incident, so the people who might have been thinking of doing something similar know that they are up against a really efficient law enforcement service. They know it as a matter of fact now, because a number of people were arrested. That is what law enforcement is about. It is about demonstrating the effectiveness of the law and its enforcement agencies, which has happened. Here we are, a panic-stricken mob—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—because we have had avalanches of letters from panic-stricken, shocked people saying, "Hang them." I know, because I received the same letters.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest) rose——

Mr. Litterick: That is the kind of pressure we are supposed to resist. We are not supposed to hurry into these judgments like frightened people. We are supposed to give considered judgments. Already hon. Members have clearly indicated the constitutional dangers in which the legislation places us. Already, shockingly, we have heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) say that he does not mind his constituents' liberties, or at least several of them, being abridged. He was not elected to this House to abridge his constituents' liberties. He was elected to defend them.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that a number of us on this side of the House who are equally concerned with the defence of civil liberties, with the constitution and with the defence of the United Kingdom have for years been urging on leaders on both sides of the House some of the measures being introduced by the Home Secretary? Therefore, the hon. Gentle-

man cannot charge my hon. Friends and myself with acting under the stress of fear, panic or emotion, because for a very long time we have been asking for measures of this kind to assist the police.

Mr. Litterick: The fact that the hon. Gentleman's opinions have not been allowed to prevail until now suggests that the situation has been transformed by what happened last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman has been joined by many Members on both sides of the House simply because of what happened last Thursday, which I suggest is not good reason.
I intend to speak briefly and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Gal-pern): Order. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because a large number of Members are anxious to take part in the debate, which must finish by 10 o'clock. If Members keep their speeches within reasonable limits—I do not want to suggest a time; I could easily say five minutes, but I am not saying that—we can accommodate all those who wish to speak.

Mr. Litterick: I intend to speak later on a number of amendments, so I shall be as brief as possible now.
The most sensible course for the House to take would be, by whatever procedural means available to it, to put aside this proposed legislation for at least a month and then consider it further. Cooler counsel might then prevail, and reason, which is the proper master for us to serve, might dominate our decisions.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: A great many general statements have been made about the Bill, some of them in the House during this debate and a great many outside. On the one hand, it has been described as Draconian in its effect on civil liberty. On the other hand it has been described as giving a very slight and unnecessary increase in the powers of the authorities and adding little to the weapons at the disposal of the bodies responsible for keeping law and order.
The fact is that the Bill is a very mixed bag in respect both of its security significance and of the value of the proposals and the extent to which they invade the liberty of the subject. We hope to proceed as quickly as possible to the Com-


mittee stage so that this diverse collection of proposals can be subjected to individual scrutiny. Some of them are Draconian, but others are very slight in the extent to which they invade the liberty of the subject.
Some matters must be made clear from the start. The British public will not have much confidence in or respect for a House of Commons which is not prepared to grant the authorities powers which, in the opinion of those authorities, they need and which, on examination by the House, prove to be needed. I do not think the public would retain much confidence in us if we were prepared simply to defer provisions which it could be shown were needed for the exercise of authority in a situation as desperate as the present.
Nor would the public have much confidence in us if we did not share their outrage at the public glorification of mass murder. That has a bearing on certain provisions in the Bill. If we were to stand by and ignore the sense of outrage of many people at the presentation and glorification of mass murder by parades and so on, we would be very much out of tune with the people we represent.
At the same time, however, the public, both now and perhaps more in future, will not thank us if we put on the statute book measures which set dangerous precedents and which on examination we do not find to be necessary to deal with the situation. That is why we must have a Committee stage so that we can thoroughly consider the proposals. We shall not be thanked by successive generations if we create precedents which are not seen to be justified even by the present situation.
One matter which we must make particularly clear is that these measures are not directed against the Irish community in the United Kingdom. I have received letters on this subject, including one this morning which claimed that the measures were a direct assault on the Irish community in this country and a deliberate attempt to make second-class citizens of that community. That is grotesquely untrue. I am sure that it is far from the intentions of the Home Secretary, and it is certainly not the intention of those of us among a number of different political parties who broadly support his proposals.
In Committee we must consider some of the proposals to ascertain whether they are necessary, particularly whether they readily bear that interpretation by people outside the House, and whether they can be modified or even explained in such a way as to make it clear that they are not intended to make second-class citizens of people who live and work peacefully here and who have earned a continued place in this country.
There are measures in the Bill which are directed against people in the Irish community and outside it who are engaged in terrorism and support it. But they are directed against terrorists and not against peaceful, law-abiding inhabitants of the United Kingdom. We must make that as clear as we can, and we must make our intentions as precise as possible.
It is partly from that point of view that we must ask about the scope of the Bill. It was partly for that reason that I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, tabled an amendment, which proved to be identical to an amendment tabled by the Oppositition Front Bench, on the scope of the Bill and the various references to Northern Ireland in the definition of terrorism. We must consider that matter carefully lest we should seem to suggest that terrorism linked to the Northern Ireland situation is different from other kinds of terrorism. A bomb is a bomb, and a terrorist act is a terrorist act, whatever its political purpose.
I have been critical over the years of those occasions on which we have seemed to say that terrorist acts pursued for political causes, such as that of the IRA, acquire a different status. Destruction of human life and the damage caused by such actions is an outrage by whoever it is performed and for whatever purpose. The purpose is almost entirely immaterial. It is the act of terrorism which we are talking about. That may cause us to reconsider the way in which we define terrorism. It is not long since the explosions that were attributed to the Angry Brigade. It is conceivable that other acts of terrorism will present us with problems, and we can consider that matter in more detail in Committee, but it has a bearing on the feeling of the Irish community in this country and it is something which we should make clear to them.
On the subject of proscription, I think most of us would agree that the direct security value is not all that great. That is why the Home Secretary has been reluctant to introduce it. Its significance relates largely to the sense of outrage of people in this country that an organisation engaged in mass murder can proclaim itself by parades, processions and other means and be seen to be something to which people can publicly belong.
We must ask questions about the media, not out of a desire to induce censorship—I should be the last to seek that—but because it would be anomalous if it were a prohibited and illegal act to stand on a public platform and make statements in support of the IRA but not a prohibited act to do the same on television. We must think carefully about that anomalous situation, however much we want to know the mind of our opponents and however much we want to protect the freedom of the broadcasting organisations.
I was among those who criticised the television company which broadcast the interview with David O'Connell, but that interview was rigorously conducted and no criticism reflects on the person conducting it. I have in the past criticised interviews with hostages in an American bank raid because those interviews were not conducted rigorously and were a mockery of serious journalism.
The point at issue is not whether the interview is conducted but whether it is right to provide a platform for the views of people who are self-confessed mass murderers and whether we can afford the traditional protection which journalists expect for their sources when we are dealing with wanted men who have been behaving dangerously. I look forward to going into the detailed aspects of that matter.
The powers of detention contained in the Bill do least to extend existing powers and least to make inroads into civil liberties. As is apparent from the actions of the police in relation to the Birmingham bombs, it is possible to detain people for questioning over a considerable period. The inclusion of these provisions reminds us that we might need to clarify the existing state of the law on the powers of the police to detain people for questioning. The provisions in the Bill do not add enor-

mously to what the police already can do, but the clarification may be of value.
The powers of exclusion are the main source of worry, both to citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Northern Ireland and to members of the Irish community, citizens of the Irish Republic, who live within the United Kingdom. Citizens of the Irish Republic enjoy, and have enjoyed over a long period, a status which is quite different from that of any other alien. They have enjoyed the right to proceed into and out of this country without passports, an enjoyment which has been reciprocal and conferred on us. By taking careful thought, the members of that community will recognise that, although we might wish to preserve that reciprocal arrangement, we have to ensure that we can protect them from terrorists who would abuse the privilege which they enjoy, and to do so we may need to enable ourselves to identify people from within that community and outside it who might abuse that privilege. If that is clearly explained it will be understood.
We all hope to be able to consider carefully the means of appeal or reconsideration and the advice which the Home Secretary receives when he makes decisions, admittedly executive decisions, in this area.

Mr. William Molloy: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's first-class argument, which is most relevant to our debate. Does he not agree, however, that if Irish people are here, and have been here for many years, it is because they want to be here and like to be here? Therefore, if someone is attacking this country, those Irish people must acknowledge that they too are being attacked, and Irish people, from bishops to barmen, should declare loudly which side they are on. I think it will be our side.

Mr. Beith: That is a well-made observation which will be echoed by anyone with military experience who can speak of the military service that members of the Irish community have given both during the last war and since. The more Irish people who come out and say that, the better it will be for the whole Irish community. That is why we should explain what we are trying to do by these measures.
On the question of security checks at ports and airports, I am grateful, as I


am sure will be the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), for the help given to us in the apposite maiden speech of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), who spoke from his own experience of a particularly un-forgeable identity card. I should not like to see a general identity card system. I share the Home Secretary's reservations about that, and my view is that the effort it would cost would outweigh the value of such a system. It is important in movements between the Republic and Northern Ireland and between the Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom that we should be able to identify people quickly and reliably and at the minimum inconvenience to the vast majority of innocent travellers whose journeys we do not wish to interrupt.
What some of us have in mind as being helpful is the provision of identity cards of a fairly rigorous kind, with the alternative of passports, as a means of identification which could be required of anyone, whether a citizen of the United Kingdom or of the Irish Republic, who made a journey between the island of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That system does not need to be an incursion into a person's civil liberties, and it might be of assistance. The type of identity card—a much more rigorous one—referred to by the hon. Member for Petersfield, would be a natural way of providing such a checking procedure.
With those observations, I hand over the debate to other hon. Members in the hope that in Committee we shall be able to go into more detail on these important provisions.

6.6 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: May 1 first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) on a maiden speech that made a real contribution to the debate.
I welcome the Bill, but only as a first step towards reinforcing the powers of the police. There must be other steps that should follow swiftly. Two of these are so important that they must be separately debated in the House, and I shall come to them later.
We in Great Britain are facing an organised campaign of violence against

the civil population—men, women and children—aimed to detach Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. To us, though not to the people of Ulster, that is a new situation.
There is a countryside demand for the Government to take all steps to protect ordinary citizens. Our parliamentary system itself is on trial. The Government must show the people that, while the political solution to the Irish question is being worked out, they can by measures passed by Parliament first contain and then defeat this violence.
The extension of police powers contained in the Bill is not enough. The Government must at the same time reinforce police manpower, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) touched on that. Heavy additional duties are being placed on the police. Police forces must be helped to recruit up to their full establishment and, as soon as possible, to establishments expanded, as necessary, to meet the new challenge. They must be given money for that purpose. They must also be given the money to extend their civilian staff to release trained policemen for operational duties.
Such measures will take time to be effective. For the immediate future it is even more important for police forces to be able to retain their trained and experienced policemen. The Home Secretary must see that pay and other conditions of service are immediately made attractive enough to draw in new recruits and to retain many trained men who have been leaving the service. It should also be an aim to attract back into the service as many as possible of those who have recently left.
As the next line of support, there should be a new drive to recruit and train greatly increased numbers of special constables. These special constables will be only part-time. I know that the Home Secretary has a working party on this subject, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has already referred. At a time when the country is demanding a great expansion of the regular police forces, I hope that the Police Federation will react to the national mood and welcome an expansion of the Special Constabulary as a major reinforcement to help them fight terrorism.
Next, will the Home Secretary look urgently into the case for re-establishing a full-time police reinforcement on the lines of the wartime First Police Reserve? I see some Labour Members looking a little mystified, but I hope that the Government will look into that possibility.
The need to bring in the Armed Services to reinforce the police, within Great Britain, has already arisen—for example, in the recent security operations at Gat-wick in my constituency and at Heathrow Airport. I welcome this evidence that our two great forces in support of law and order—the police and the Armed Services—are working together in the campaign against terrorism.
But when we are giving important new commitments at home to our Armed Services it seems to me to be utterly against our national interest to contemplate cutting their manpower. Instead, surely, in these new and disquieting circumstances, the Secretary of State for Defence should be making every effort to bring the Armed Services up to full strength.
In the meantime the Government should, I am sure, be expanding the Territorial Army, or whatever its new-fangled name may be, to enable it to serve as a part-time reinforcement, to help in the task of defeating terrorism which will clearly be with us for a long time ahead.
Those are some of the basic measures which I believe the Government must take now to meet the public demand for an end to terrorism and all kinds and a restoration of safety and freedom under the law.
As I said earlier, however, there are two other important measures which should be taken, but not until they have been fully debated in this House. The first is to bring in the death penalty for acts of terrorism. I welcome the promise of a debate on this subject within the next few weeks. The second is an introduction of identity cards, including photographs and thumb prints. This, I realise from my own past experience, is a measure that would take time to bring in, but it would help the police and for that reason I would support it. I was impressed with the description of the identity card system given by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield.
If the Government take these additional measures which I have suggested, the public will be reassured and the forces of law and order will be given a better chance to contain and defeat terrorism while political solutions are being worked out.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Having been a Member of the House for a relatively short period of time, I find that the Bill poses for me probably one of the most serious problems I have had to face since I was elected. The issues may appear to be relatively simple, and it would be easy to go along with the clamour for action, whether on the death penalty or in some other way, to deal with an extremely difficult situation. I do not think there are any in the House who would not deplore the tragedy that took place in Birmingham, a tragedy which led to the present situation.
Having said that, however, I have to decide whether it is right to deprive people of civil liberties to ensure that by these measures acts of terrorism will in some way be prevented. One Conservative Member said a little earlier that the defence of civil liberties was dear to him and to many of his hon. Friends. I believe he said that with sincerity, but I am extremely sceptical about the results of the actions of this legislative chamber over many years. Many are concerned about the power of the executive in Britain, about the lack of individual liberty and the continual erosion of civil liberties.
There has been reference to the Universal Charter of Human Rights to which Great Britain is a party, but it is apparent that many of the articles in that charter are offended by the Bill's provisions. Articles 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 26, 29 and 30 are all offended by the Bill. Possibly that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described this legislation as Draconian. It certainly is. It could be argued—and no doubt it will be in the next 24 hours—that measures of this type are justified in the interest of protecting the individual liberties of the majority. I, too, accept that view. Therefore, I believe that the onus of proof falls on the Home Secretary to show that by these measures we shall


succeed in preventing the terrorism to which we are addressing ourselves.
What is the evidence to date? We have had emergency powers in Northern Ireland; we have had internment and various other restrictions on the liberty of the individual. Has this resulted in a diminution of acts of terrorism, assassinations and murders of various descriptions? The evidence is against acceptance of that theory. On the contrary, it would appear that there is a considerable correlation between increased acts of violence and the establishment and exercise of emergency powers and internment. The police in Britain—the Home Secretary confirmed this in his speech today—have consistently advised him against the banning of certain organisations on the ground that in such a situation it becomes less effective to pursue normal police techniques and to seek out the guilty.
We have not had from the Home Secretary a satisfactory explanation of the new factors in the situation today which suggest that the police, exercising the powers in this Bill, will be more effective in the pursuit of their aims. It must not be forgotten that the police have to rely upon information from a community which cares to establish the truth arising from these acts, and I believe that that would apply to the majority of English and Irish communities living in England today. But will the police get the sort of co-operation they need from communities like that if they are seen to be operating the coercive aspects of the Bill? I think that the answer must be "No". There will be a tendency to enjoin against the police rather than to seek to co-operate with them. The reason for that may be either fear or an obscure concept of loyalty.
There are various provisions in the Bill which a number of my colleagues intend to deal with during its later stages, and I am mindful that Mr. Deputy Speaker has appealed for short speeches. Notwithstanding that, I hope I shall be allowed to say how much I regret that a Labour Government, who still have before them a decision of the 1972 Labour Party Conference to establish a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland to protect minority communities against discrimination on religious or other grounds, have not seen fit

to use the machinery which is being used this week to get through this Bill to rush through that type of Bill. Had they done so, in my view we would have laid a foundation which would have meant that these proposed powers and other powers in operation in Northern Ireland would not have been necessary.
We are bringing in certain legislation because the Government are unwilling, as were the previous administration, to reappraise their policy in regard to Northern Ireland and the situation existing there. I agree with those of my colleagues who believe that we shall begin to solve the problems of Ireland only when we declare our intention to disengage from Ireland. That does not mean that it could be done in the short run. It might take two years. It might take even five years. But such a declaration of intent followed by the ending of emergency powers in Northern Ireland, the ending of internment and the establishment of a Bill of Rights, with the withdrawal of troops to barracks and with uniformed policemen doing the job of policing in Northern Ireland, would enable us to begin to solve the problems of Ireland and avoid the necessity for the Draconian measures involved in this Bill, which I hope the House will reject.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I begin by taking up one matter referred to by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thome). I do not think that anyone in the House, let alone the Home Secretary, believes that the Bill will solve the problems in Northern Ireland. What it will do, we hope, is make it harder to commit acts of terrorism.
In my brief remarks, all I wish to do is to obtain some information which I believe will help in our consideration of the Bill in Committee, assuming that the Minister is able to provide it meanwhile.
First, I must take up a little time to congratulate my hon. Friend and political neighbour the Member for Peters-field (Mr. Mates) on his maiden speech, which was apposite, brief and to the point.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) regretted the narrowness of the Bill and that it did not extend to acts of terrorism originating in causes other than


Northern Ireland. Terrorism is a worldwide factor in our lives today. Throughout the world more people are relying on violence as a means of obtaining their political objectives, not caring very much how many innocent people may get hurt in that violence.
We are dealing today with only one narrow aspect of world terrorism. We are dealing with the extension of Irish terrorism from one part of the United Kingdom to which hitherto it has been confined to the whole of the United Kingdom—to Great Britain as well as to Northern Ireland. Yet, in referring to the provisions for exclusion orders and methods of protecting individuals against injustice under those orders, the Home Secretary said that matters would be raised which "were the gravest matters of national security." That implies a little more than just the extension of terrorism of a particular kind from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
In the Bill only the IRA is initially proscribed, although there is provision in Clause 1 for the proscription of other organisations at a later date should it be necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) suggested that other groups might commit terrorist acts in the name of and under cover of the IRA.
I come now to the specific questions which I wish to put to the Minister. What use does he think is being made of the IRA by other revolutionary or subversive groups from outside? What use are they making of it to try to extend their terrorist activity? Are they arranging supplies of arms or money to the IRA for use indirectly against our society?
Conversely, is there any evidence that the IRA itself is making use in this country of revolutionary, subversive or terrorist groups, some of which may have been much more innocent in their original foundation than they have now become, later in their careers? In other words, what is the extent of the penetration of the IRA or other domestic groups in this country by subversion from abroad?
I accept that questions of this kind have to be answered delicately. However, it will be useful if we can be given some idea of the answers when we come to discuss in Committee amendments which

propose extending these provisions beyond acts of terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland.
We all know that there are subversive and revolutionary elements in this country which are determined to destroy our society by one means or another. I should like to know whether we are beginning to discuss some of these means in this debate on Irish terrorism. I fear that, unless we look at the whole reality, we may go either not far enough or too far. These are matters which the House should consider most seriously.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I agree with the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) to the extent that it is right to draw attention to the fact that terrorism has far wider implications than those we tend to treat in the Bill. The Title of the measure is Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I hope that the problem of terrorism will be a temporary matter.
I feel the gravest possible foreboding. We know that this problem of terrorism started before the Irish situation became acute. Modern technology has placed in the hands of those who are minded to resort to terrorist tactics the most fearsome and formidable armoury. I do not believe that any country in the world, however powerful militarily, has begun to find the answer to it.
I support the Bill. I think it was inevitable that it had to be introduced. I wish in a way that it could have been introduced at a stage when it did not appear to be a reactive measure to the terrible events of last week, although those events have made us realise, if we did not realise before, the gravity of the problem with which we are faced.
I am by no means entirely sure that the provisions of the Bill are sufficient to be wholly effective. On Monday, in a Question to the Home Secretary, I said that I believed that identification cards, coupled with photographs and fingerprints, would not be an unwarrantable intrusion on civil liberty given the appalling situation that we face. At the risk of offending people's libertarian susceptibilities, which I share—I do not like having to say this, but I believe that it should be reconsidered—there is an argument for that suggestion.
In one respect at least, the Government have got off on the wrong foot. It may be true at the moment that none of the Protestant extremist organisations has yet resorted to violence of the kind we are seeking to combat on this side of the Irish Sea, but it is no guarantee that they will not do so in future.
It would be a good thing if in Committee the Government were to accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) not only, as it were, to fend off or to make more difficult the perpetration of violence by any such organisation but also to parry the argument that this is wholly angled against the IRA and not against other terrorists. It may be an irrational argument, but let us kill it stone dead. Let us demonstrate with pedantic exactitude our impartiality in this matter and at the outset make certain that all organisations that engage in the kind of villainous conduct that has been going on in Northern Ireland find their way into the scope of the Bill here and now so that we do not have to bring in further legislation or Orders in Council to bring it up to date if and when the occasion arises when those events occur.
There is a ring of desperation about certain aspects of the Bill. I hope that the Attorney-General will note this point. As one who supports the Bill—not, I hasten to add, merely because I represent a Birmingham constituency, but because I am profoundly troubled by the problem of world terrorism—I think that the Home Secretary ought to consider again the question of some kind of juridical tribunal. It need not necessarily meet in public. However, it would be some form of guarantee against bureaucratic mistake and, more than that, it would provide a reassurance for all who want to stamp on terrorism and at the same time are concerned that civil liberties shall not be abridged one jot or tittle more than is absolutely necessary for the purpose for which the Bill has been created.
I turn now to something a little more controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) ran into some trouble when he castigated the principle upon which the Bill is founded. My hon. Friends said, in effect, that it was

falsely founded and that unless and until we reversed our Irish policy we would have no solution to the problem. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) took my hon. Friend to task on that point.
I find myself in the paradoxical position of being able to agree with both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right in what he said about the necessity for this measure, and I support it.
However, the Irish aspect of terrorism, as I have pointed out, is not the only one and possibly in the last analysis is not the gravest. We have only to recall what happened in Tunis the other day—I digress to make this point—when, in the wake of the United Nations recognition of Yasser Arafat, another group of terrorists proceeded to do the same kind of things as the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, so-called, had been carrying out before, and they are people who probably regard Yasser Arafat as a Fascist beast. Therefore, we should not imagine that when the Irish problem has been solved we shall have finished with terrorism.
I think that the time has come to admit that this country has nothing further to offer in Ireland. We have had one paper constitution after another torn up by the divergent irrational forces that dominate that country. Only one sane Member of Parliament has been returned to this House from Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Belfast, West.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that any reflection on the sanity of Members of Parliament is going a little too far because it might become too comprehensive.

Mr. Lee: I accept your reproof, Mr. Speaker. It may be—I say this in all seriousness—that this is too serious a matter to get involved in polemics. If I said something I should not have said, I withdraw the observation. I suggest that the hon. Member for Belfast, West is the only comparatively non-contentious Member who seems to have found his way into this House from Northern Ireland.
I should like to know from hon. Members on both sides who want us to continue in Ireland how long they think we should stay there. If after 50 years or more of the present situation, to say


nothing of the much longer history of British involvement in Ireland, we are unable to reconcile these forces—largely, I suspect, because they do not wish to be reconciled one with another—surely it is time for us to admit that we cannot do anything further. It seems no argument to say that, because the IRA wants us out of Northern Ireland and is using force in an endeavour to speed our departure, that is a reason for not going. It may be that if we were to announce our imminent departure we would force the divergent factions in that country for the first time ever to face the reality of living with each other. As long as we are there, they are enabled to go on playing out their seventeenth-century fantasy-world religious struggles, whereas if we were to depart they would know perfectly well that they would have to live together or dissolve into a blood bath.
I draw this analogy, which is by no means inappropriate. When in March 1947 Lord Mountbatten announced that we were going to leave India, like it or not, and, whether or not the Hindus and the Moslems were prepared to accept each other, we would depart——

Mr. Patrick Cormack: There was a blood bath.

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will come to that in a moment. Lord Mountbatten forced the Congress Party, for the first time, to accept the reality and existence of Pakistan.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) says that there was a blood bath. I hope he will accept the sincerity with which I say this. I have many constituents who have come from Jullundur, Amritsar and Lahore, and so I am not insensitive to the scope and tragedy of what happened. But how much worse it would have been if we had held on in India. We should have found ourselves involved in a three-cornered war of indefinite duration.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury) rose——

Mr. Lee: No, I cannot give way. A number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The time has come for us to say that we shall depart from Northern Ireland and for the Irish people to work out their own destination.
I make one final observation in view of the way in which religion is used in this matter. To use a Gilbertian observation, "Thank God I am an atheist and do not belong to either of the religious forces when I look at the things that are done in the name of religion".

6.41 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: That speech ended on a word of comic content.
The Irish Republican Army and its sympathisers wish to bomb us out of Ulster. They are terrorists, and they are engaged in levying war.
I want to pose two questions to the Government tonight. One of them can, happily, be put briefly following the able contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). The other can be equally brief if I pay tribute to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). His was a first-class contribution to the debate, and, following what he said, I ask the Home Secretary to accept what he said as being true; namely, that fingerprints can be used in the way he suggested, and I believe that they should be so used.
I want to take further what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham. The IRA has a large band of allies. Some of them are Marxist sympathisers from Czechoslovakia, Poland and elsewhere, and some are notorious criminals who are paid for their work. The Home Office knows, as does the Ministry of Defence, a number of those criminals and their associates who have provided valuable information to Her Majesty's Government and their precessors. To what extent is the infiltration that one finds in the universities—as illustrated by the resolutions passed by some of them in support of the tactics of the terrorists in the IRA—and in the various other organs such as the Press and the mass media interrelated in this question? More important, is this measure sufficient to cover all those activities?

Mr. Bob Cryer: Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley) rose——

Mr. Rees-Davies: No. I promised to be brief.
I share the view of my right hon. Friend that much of this cannot be said in public, but there are real fears on the


Upposition benches about this aspect of the matter.
I share strongly the view of the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that the law of treason can be used. I disagree entirely with the view expressed earlier this afternoon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson), a former Attorney-General, and I do so after carefully considering what he said.
I should like to refer the Attorney-General to two particular matters. I am most anxious that this should not become a legal debate, and I do not intend that it should do so, but it is of the utmost importance to recognise that it is open to the Government, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, and on the view of the Attorney-General, to indict for treason those who have been guilty of these bomb outrages in Birmingham, and, if they are found to be the proper persons and are proved to be guilty, to execute them.
I believe that they should be so indicted, and I have strong support for that in the view expressed by the learned author in "Russell on Crime", Twelfth Edition, Volume 1, at page 210, where he says that it is treasonable
to levy war against His Majesty, his heirs and successors, within this realm, in order, by force or constraint, to compel him or them to change his or their measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate, or overawe, both Houses or either House of Parliament.
He goes on to say on page 211:
it is still legally possible to prosecute, in an appropriate case, either for constructive treason or for 'treason felony' under the Act of 1848. Moreover, facts which would support an indictment for felony under the Act of 1848 may be such as would be evidence of such overt deed as would support the charge of treason under the Statute of Treasons, 1351.
Lower down the page he adds:
Levying war against the King in his realm. The constructions which have been put on these words have enlarged their meaning beyond warlike operations in the ordinary meaning of that term. In the law of treason war can be levied constructively by even small numbers of persons, without being armed with military weapons, so long as their purpose is to make a resistance by force to the King's authority with a subversive purpose of a public and general character.

Mr. George Cunningham: What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. Rees-Davies: It has everything to do with it, because it is concerned with the use of emergency powers to try to stop those who owe allegiance to Her Majesty in this country from engaging in acts of treason. That is what the whole Bill is about. We are concerned to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the death penalty, which will be dealt with in another debate, and this Bill, which is concerned with people who are the enemies of Her Majesty and of Her Majesty's Government and come to this country to levy war against us, which is what the latest bomb outrages are, and what the earlier ones were.
I wrote to the previous Attorney-General asking him to indict for treason in previous cases, but he decided not to do so. I respect the discretion vested in every Attorney-General. I can see that there are two arguments. I am not in any way suggesting that there are not. but I respectfully urge the Attorney-General to consider that it is open to him to indict for treason.
If the Attorney-General admits, as he must, that that is so, he may say that it is safer to proceed under the Explosive Substances Act, but one thing I must ask is whether the decision to indict for treason——

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it relevant on the Second Reading of this Bill to consider what charge the authorities ought to bring in respect of some activities that have taken place?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is out of order, but it may not be particularly relevant.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The relevance of the matter is that in considering this issue I invite Her Majesty' Government to consider whether they should adopt a new provision—not necessarily an amendment—to the law of treason that would provide the real power that is needed to bring these people to justice and secure that they are liquidated in the manner in which enemies of the State should be liquidated. Whatever view one takes of a death penalty, those who are enemies of the


realm deserve to be dealt with swiftly and executed.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's amendment to widen the basis of this provision to deal with terrorists in general and not only in Northern Ireland is carefully considered. Even if it is not found acceptable tonight, I hope that we will recognise that, as a more permanent provision, we shall need a measure to deal with terrorists in this country, and not merely those associated with the Irish Republican Army. I mention this matter because there is not the recognition that there should be that they are, and believe themselves to be, an army. This provision should cover also further acts of terrorism which will shortly fall upon us.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I hope that the motivations of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) do not dominate this debate. They are too chauvinistic to help to reach the solution that we all want.
Like everyone else, I was horrified last Thursday to hear what had happened in Birmingham. I am sure that all our hearts go out to the dead and the bereaved and that we want to do our utmost to think out solutions to an intractable and terrible problem which has been with us for a long time. At this stage we are moving further away from any solution to the great problem of Northern Ireland because we need a radical reappraisal of our entire policy towards that country.
When I came to the House on Friday for a debate on a quite different subject—that of referenda—I was shocked by the attitude of many of my fellow Members, who seemed to be motivated by the bad counsellor, the spirit of vengeance. If we are counselled by that spirit, we shall move further from a solution to this problem.
The solution we need is not punitive or retributive as many Conservative Members seem to think. It is a very difficult political solution. The refusal to have a debate in depth about its achievement leads us to thresh wildly around like those who are planting bombs all over the place. We are liable to reach solutions which are non-solutions and will intensify the problem.
One of the fundamental problems is one which is faced by the whole community, whether in Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom or in the world. We need to be seen to be fair and unbiased in our attempt to reach these solutions. Large numbers not only of English people but of honourable Irish people in our community are, to use the Home Secretary's words, bound to be frightened even though they had nothing to do with what has happened and were appalled by it.
The Home Secretary described the Bill as Draconian. I should like to have seen in the long Title some reference to Ireland. I am frightened by the prospect of many of these Draconion provisions being used against working people if something is not done about it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a widespread fear in the Labour movement and was expressed in the Palace of Westminster by many of the lobbyists on behalf of the Shrewsbury pickets. This view has been expressed repeatedly today and it should be taken into account.
Anyone who has looked through the amendments realises that some Conservative Members intend to try to make the Bill even more Draconian than the Home Secretary says it is. That is the position that we are liable to be in if our libertarian principles are not present in our minds. I received a whole shoal of threatening letters after I raised in the House some time ago the subject of the six men who, after a parade, were called to account. I mentioned that, in Birmingham at the same time, 2,000 men with 20 drum and fife bands had what they called a victory parade, during which the most obscene gestures were used.
Those men were wearing top hats and stoles and carried rolled umbrellas. If that does not constitute a uniform, I do not know what does. [Interruption.] Hon. Members from Northern Ireland have no reason to laugh when they realise what is happening in this country, as an overspill effect from the events in Northern Ireland.
They have held part of the community in Northern Ireland in virtual subjection and have done nothing to give democracy to that minority in the spirit which motivates us in this House towards any minority.
The Bill should provide that anyone wearing uniforms provocative of trouble in Northern Ireland should be forbidden to do so. Some time ago, some young men were arrested after parading in uniform on Darwen Moors. They were tried and sentenced. During the trial they had claimed that they were part of a 6,000-strong Ulster defence army which was ready to go over there and fight in a civil war. Should we not take these things into account when considering the Bill? There should be no retaliatory parades of people in stoles and top hats carrying rolled umbrellas, because they are provocative to the Catholic Irish community in this country. They should be eschewed and condemned.
We should not allow the forces which have always wanted the death penalty for many things to carry the day. Many of us have managed to stamp that out, but the spirit of vengeance and their determination to raise the subject of the death penalty will make a solution of this problem more remote, because they will thereby give hostages to fortune and martyrs to those who need martyrs.
My aim tonight has been to try to heal the breach between us. If those who do not want to heal the breach and can be clearly seen not to want to do so want to stick their necks out, that is up to them, but in the House there is a spirit of determination to grapple with the problems which Northern Ireland forces on us and which long years ago we forced upon Northern and Southern Ireland.
I agree with a previous speaker who said that one of the problems we have to face is that at some time we shall have to withdraw from Northern Ireland and leave it to the Irish people to settle their own affairs. I hope that at some time, without being rigid about the date, we could ask the communities of Northern Ireland to come together and discuss their affairs as a prelude to our being able to withdraw. When that happens, I hope that Opposition Members who come from Ulster will make a better contribution to healing the breach than they have made so far.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: It was with sorrow rather than with anger that I listened to the extraordinary speech which was just delivered by the hon. Member

for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). His speech showed a complete failure to grasp the reality of the horrible activities of the terrorists in our midst which has been the cause and which has procured the Bill to be brought before the House.
The Bill has been accepted by the House with grim reluctance and with sorrow but as a grim necessity. One of the tragedies of the work of terrorists in the modern world is that civilised societies seeking to defend themselves are obliged, in the very process of self-defence, to cut down on and to limit the very liberties which are the most precious fruit of civilisation.
To the extent that civilised society is obliged to limit its own freedoms to combat terrorism, the terrorists exult in a victory. I am convinced that terrorists are linked internationally. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) showed that in his speech. We do not know, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us before the evening is out, to what extent there are links between various terrorist groups that are known.
There can be no doubt that the aim of anarchists, be they in the Irish Republican Army or in whatever other group working in the free world by terrorism, is to destroy freedom and to bring about the end of civilised society.
Because it is absolutely essential to protect the lives of the people of this country and to protect law and order, I welcome the Bill, but, as I said on Tuesday, I welcome it as a cruel necessity. I hope that it will not be too long before we are able to do away with it, but such is the force of the work of the terrorists and so strong are they in the world today that I suspect that we shall have to bear with this measure for a very long time.
I was shocked by the speeches made this afternoon by the hon. Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I believe that those hon. Members neglected completely to take account of the fact that the very first duty of the Government in a civilised country is to protect the lives, the liberty and the freedom of the citizens of that country. That is the first duty. In the modern world Governments have a great many others. So many duties have they


that in the Parliaments of the free world we tend to forget that the first duty of the Government is to protect us from the enemies who beset us, and who are now besetting us so strongly both outside and inside the country, especially from inside at the moment.
The Bill is a necessary Bill. I was very impressed by the speech in support of it by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden). From only one thing in the hon. Gentleman's speech would I dissent. I do not think that this evening is the appropriate moment to enlarge on the question whether we should now introduce in Britain capital punishment for death caused by terrorist acts, but I am profoundly convinced that we should introduce it, and I hope that we shall have an early opportunity of debating that issue.
I do not dissent from the view which was expressed by the hon. Member for Ladywood that many people, in advocating the return of capital punishment for crimes of terrorism which cause death, are actuated by vengeance. I believe, however, that there is a profound philosophical difference between vengeance and that retribution which society has always expected will meet the worst crimes which are known to humanity. This has always been the view of society. In recent times, in peace, we have tended to see this overlaid, but it is still a profound truth.
The death penalty exacted against the worst types of criminal working in the public field salves the conscience of society. There was no argument that was used at the time of the execution of the war criminals at the end of the war which would not be pertinent to and could not be applied to the execution of those who were responsible for crimes such as have recently been committed in Birmingham and elsewhere in Britain.
Further, I am obliged to say that, although one can talk till the cows come home about whether the death penalty deters, I have always taken the view that there are some who will be deterred by the death penalty, and if there are some who will be deterred from crimes such as these by the death penalty, we should have the death penalty as an essential weapon in the armoury of society to enable it to defend itself against terrorist acts of this kind.
I do not see how proper control can be exercised at the ports of entry into Great Britain and I do not see how the police can properly exercise the sort of control that they must exercise in society now to deal with terrorists unless we have an identity card system. I was one of the first to applaud the abolition of identity cards in the 1950s. I do not believe that the British people take willingly to having to carry identity cards.
The carrying of identity cards was always regarded—I think rightly so—as an inroad upon freedom and upon liberty. However, there are times when the identity card is necessary. It was necessary in war time, and we freely accepted it. The mood in my constituency of Solihull, where people have suffered grievously not only from the bombs actually planted, which thank God did not cause death there, but because people from Solihull have been killed by the bombs in Birmingham, is all one way. People are willing to accept the identity card if it is a necessary means of defending society.
The Secretary of State said today and on Monday that he was not yet convinced that it was necessary to have identity cards. I believe that further consideration will show that it is. In his splendid maiden speech this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) showed that such cards should not present enormous administrative difficulties. After all, we are one of the few countries in Western Europe—a free society—that does not have identity cards. People in France and in many other countries are used to carrying them. If the identity card can be used in combating terrorism, we should have it. I hope that the Secretary of State will give further consideration to this.
Again referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, it would be the greatest betrayal in our history if we were to pull out of Ireland, as they say, and if we were to betray the people of Northern Ireland and leave them to a bloody civil war. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. Our responsibilities are as great in Northern Ireland as they are here in Great Britain. To pull out of Northern Ireland would be an appalling betrayal, and I trust that it would not be contemplated by more than a mere handful of hon. Members.
I greatly hope that any tendency to wreak vengeance upon perfectly responsible, honest, decent Irish citizens in our society will be resisted by everybody who has the power of resistance and the power to give tongue about it. I have had letters, as many other hon. Member will have had, from constituents so moved by what happened last week that for a moment they so far forgot themselves as to say that the Irish should be chased out of Great Britain. That would be ignoble. It is our plain duty to encourage the people in our constituencies to see that the great bulk of the Irish citizens here are respectable, decent citizens in our society, but they, too, have a duty and must not shield or in any way succour the terrorists in our midst who are taking British lives. I welcome the Bill.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It was not my original intention to speak in the debate, but as I have listened to contributions from both sides of the House I have felt that we were losing the measured tones and the consideration that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced, and the careful advice and wise words that had come from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) and his stricken constituency.
There has undoubtedly been a great deal of hysteria as a result of that bombing exercise. There have been many cries for vengeance. People have said that we are being panicked. I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 feet beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb.
Therefore we have a right to protect the lives of our constituents, but we also have a right to say that there is no sign of panic on their part. They express a legitimate wish when they look to this House and those who represent them at a time when our cities are under attack for understanding and protection. They want to know how we will protect them. We must therefore look for advice to the police, the people to whom we give the power and the duty to protect us. We

must consider what we can legitimately give them in extra powers so that they can protect us. But we must not forget that those powers are such that normally we would not like to bestow them.
The police have given their advice and my right hon. Friend has responded to it. In so doing, what he has done is the least he could do. He is altering the 1939 Act, which was originally intended to run for two years but which, in view of the events which overtook it, ran for a much longer period. He has said that the Bill must run for only six months or be renewed, and that is a point we must welcome in view of the curtailment of our liberties which the Bill entails.
It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens. We must bear this in mind in deciding regretfully that we must pass the Bill. That does not mean, however, that the legislation must go through in all its detail unchallenged. It does not mean that we must not examine it carefully, because we are still the protectors of our fellow citizens' civil rights. While examining the detail, we cannot deny the principle or say under any circumstances that when our people are looking to us for support we in this House should deny it to them.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has returned to the Chamber. He mentioned the statement by the Archbishops and Bishops of England and Wales which will be read in all Catholic churches this Sunday. I welcome the statement but I feel that it should have been made a long time ago. I welcome it, too, because it helps to give the matter a certain amount of balance. I shall read it because it sums up the feeling of all the Catholics in this country. I have never spoken here before—or, at least, I hope I have not—as a Catholic. I am not a Catholic Member of Parliament. I am a Labour Member of Parliament, and it is as such that I generally speak.
The Archbishops and Bishops say:
We ask all our people to observe this Sunday as a day of reparation and intercession for peace in our countries and Northern Ireland.


The brutal and indiscriminate killings caused by the bomb explosions in Birmingham have excited feelings of horror and revulsion among all right-minded people. We utterly condemn these murders as well as the cruel mutilations and injuries suffered by so many innocent human beings. We express our deepest sympathy and compassion to all who have suffered or been bereaved. We pray that God will comfort and console them.
Our feelings of revulsion for these acts of terrorism must not allow a wedge to be driven between the English and Irish peoples in these islands. The vast bulk of Irish people condemn this terrorism as much as we do. No Catholic can offer support or excuse for these acts of violence.
We must continue to condemn the actions of all terrorists, no matter from which side. We believe that all Christian leaders would do the same.
This is the point which is relevant to the right hen. Member for Down, South, because he quoted only a part of the statement: It goes on to say:
No peace will be possible until violence is repudiated on both sides. Above all we must work for the removal of injustice which is the cause of violence. On each of us falls the duty of praying and working for this end.
Condemnation of violence is not enough. We must root out its causes. Therefore we ask all Christian people to consider more seriously than we have ever done before what are the injustices and fears which have led to the present violence. For our part we are ready to co-operate in any way we can.
I read the whole statement because I took exception to what the right hon. Member for Down, South said. That is a fine part of Ireland he represents and one which I particularly love. Unless we root out the injustices which exist in the Six Counties, we shall not get rid of the men of violence. It is not as though we were starting with a clean slate. The history and the divisions go deep. Injustices have been perpetrated by each side upon the other. No side in this conflict is virgin pure, no side can say that it has no responsibility for a part of the situation which exists in Northern Ireland. No side can say that it has not perpetrated injustices, violence and the denial of social and political rights.
The House therefore has a duty not only to pass legislation to protect our people but to question why a massacre such as took place in Birmingham last Thursday should suddenly precipitate a debate on Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House the following week. We must question why it takes such things as that to make us appreciate the brutalities

which are happening to the communities in Northern Ireland and to make us realise that, since we claim that the Six Counties are a part of our Sovereign Lady's dominions, we have a real and positive duty towards the people there. We cannot simply brush that under the carpet until there is another bomb in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Hull or London. We have a duty to act now.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I welcome the Bill in terms similar to those which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) welcomed the Archbishops' statement. I welcome the Bill and feel that it ought to have been produced a long time ago. When the hon. Member thinks about the problem more deeply, it will perhaps occur to him that it is because of the injustices which the people of this country are now suffering and have suffered for the past two to thre years—as innocent victims in Northern Ireland have been suffering for years—that the Bill is introduced. I make no bones about welcoming the Bill because I and many of my hon. Friends have been advocating such measures for a long time.
Over the past two and a half years I have been pressing for proscription of the IRA in this country and for control of travel between Ireland and this country and between the North and South. As long ago as July 1973 I and a colleague went to see the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House during the Summer Recess to press for a recall of the House to introduce measures on the lines of this Bill. What effect would there have been if such measures had been introduced then? Those of us who pressed for them believe that they would have been effective and that some of the outrages of recent months could have been prevented. Obviously I cannot claim this with certainty. What I can claim is that our pressure and our activities in this respect perhaps made it more possible for this Bill to be introduced in record time, within a few hours of the Home Secretary making his original statement.
Such a measure needs to be comprehensive. We do not want legislation in dribs and drabs. Many useful things are contained in the Bill, but I would have liked to see all the steps taken at one time. The introduction of identity cards


into the United Kingdom as a whole would have been a useful step, not least because it would not offend the susceptibilities of people living in Northern Ireland who may feel that they require special authority to go to another part of Britain. We could have introduced an identity card system quite easily. There is a precedent for the use of such cards because young people travel around Europe on such cards. They are used as a normal travel document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peteisfield (Mr. Mates) in an excellent maiden speech pointed out that these things could be done speedily and with a lack of administrative trouble. I would have liked to see a Northern Ireland part to this Bill. I would have liked to see more effective control of the border and to have seen an end to our present low-profile attitude towards interrogation in the Province. I would also have liked to see equal powers of arrest and detention, because from what I read in the Bill the powers of arrest and detention in this country are now greater than those available in Northern Ireland. If there was a moment to do it, this is the moment when the death penalty ought to have been introduced. I believe that the country expects this of us.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on his courage in introducing the Bill. It might be thought to be rather out of keeping with his libertarian principles. I believe that far from being Draconian he has shown something in which he believes strongly, in compassion, for the innocent victims of these crimes. He has taken the first faltering steps to protect society and its individual members. Why have some of us been pressing for such measures for several years? I think it was because we sensed that a terrible wound was being inflicted on the morale and pride of people in this country. We sensed also that as a result there might be a terrible backlash. We saw for ourselves the utter incredulity among people who felt that Parliament could sit back and take no action and that we apparently had no will to win and were not prepared to fight back or show any defiance.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has so wholeheartedly disowned a policy of appeasement. As I said in a recent letter

I wrote to the Press, the most important lesson to learn—I am glad that this was reiterated by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—is that the first thing we must do to win the battle against the terrorists is convince them that their days are numbered. When that is done, more than half the battle will have been won. It may be said that there will be retaliation from terrorists and even bloodier incidents than we have already had. It is suggested that if stronger measures such as the death penalty are introduced, perhaps hostages may be taken. We may be asked whether such a step is wise. People are saying that if we take stronger measures we may be acting as our own worst enemy.
This has to be thought through—all the way through. If we do nothing, we will surely see an escalation in terrorism. In that event we will all go under. I reject the theory that all we are doing is bringing more trouble on our heads. This is pure defeatism. I reject too the contention from the Labour side that we are interfering with the liberties of the subject. We are now at war with the terrorists. We are not interfering with the liberties of the subject. We are protecting those liberties. The country expects that of us.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: An earlier occupant of the Chair beseeched us to be as brief as possible so that all those who wished to contribute would be able to do so. I will do my level best to meet that request.
The troublesome times through which our nation is going, economically and in other ways, often raise tempers in this House. The temperature has been driven up to astronomic heights on occasion. It is perhaps to the credit of this House and its great history that when it comes to something really savage, when there is an attack on the democracy which we have created, not only for this country but for the world, we can debate the issue coolly, sensibly and soberly.
Often we are tempted to join with those outside who say that respect for Parliament is decreasing. There may be some justification for this. It is at times of crisis that the House of Commons has shown an example, and I believe it has done so today. The last time it did so was on an occasion which turned out


to be more dreadful—an occasion which posed just as savage a threat. That was when the enemies of this nation came from another part of Europe. They never actually reached this country. We now have just as villainous an enemy who has got into the land and is trying to destroy our constitution and nation. The present position is just as serious as if the Nazis were preparing to invade. That is what must be acknowledged. I can hardly understand the point of view of those who show great concern, agitation and worry because of the temporary loss of civil liberties that is involved. We must realise and acknowledge that the Bill is being introduced to prevent further loss of life to our fellow countrymen.
It has been said that from time to time we on this island have always found an opportune moment and some mystic means to produce the right person in times of crisis. I believe that we have once again found the right person with the right frame of mind. He is a person with great intelligence and a record of massive defence of liberty—namely, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We should be grateful that we have people of his great ability in times of stress who can come to this House and present a Bill which by the very method of its presentation, coupled with the fact that it has been considered by my right hon. Friend, should enable all of us, whatever reservations we may have, to allow it to become enacted as quickly as possible.
Let us be blunt: we all hate the bombers. They are despicable people. If it is a sin to hate, I admit that sin. I hate and loathe them. I am prepared to take any consequences for that statement. Somebody has to say it irrespective of whether we are Irish, Welsh, Scottish or a mixture of all three. I am sorry that I cannot include Anglo-Saxon because I am a mixture of Irish, Welsh and Scots. My daughter's child, however, may correct that omission.
It is necessary for us to say clearly that we are prepared to put aside our religious and national feelings. I had some difficulty in doing so yesterday because, whilst I love the New Zealanders, I wondered whether my love had faded a little when they beat Wales at rugby football. Those are the sort of matters

that make this great country of ours such a superb example.
Let us realise that people of alleged massive strength in arms, air forces and military paraphernalia have failed to smash these islands. That is because in times of stress and strain our people have been prepared without hesitation to surrender a great deal of their civil liberties and to have measures imposed upon them that they would never have accepted unless there had been an emergency. We are now facing another grave emergency.
Sorrowful and dreadful though the situation is for the families of those who have suffered the anguish and bitterness of knowing that innocent people have been villainously destroyed, we must ensure that we do not fall into the trap of not differentiating between the defence of our civil liberties and our system of jurisprudence and of ensuring that we introduce protective and effective measures in the best traditions of this House.
The worst thing of all to do would be to fail in this House to do our duty. I believe that my right hon. Friend has given us the right lead. If we do not do our duty and pass this Bill swiftly there will be people outside who might encourage others to give them the power that they want. They would do much worse than anything contained in the Bill. They would offend all who believe in the principles of democracy. We must take full cognizance of that danger.
We would fall into a dreadful trap if we were to allow a form of anti-Irishness to creep into these islands. If we were to blame people because of their party or religion or nationality we would become as despicable as those who have blown to bits our fellow countrymen. That is what we must avoid. We have done it before and we can do so again.
We must recognise and acknowledge the magnificent contribution which has been made by Irish men and women to the great freedoms that we enjoy. We are proud of the great sailors, soldiers and airmen who are Irish. Let us put all that in the balance. I hope that that will be done within my constituency. When the occasion allows me to go home to Wales and to visit an area with Irish names like my own I find that there are


many people of Irish descent. There is no group of people more loyal and dedicated to the cause of British democracy than those folk. We must ensure that they are in no way injured or hurt by the whipping up of some form of vulgar spasm of hate against folk who happen to be Irish.
I agree with all my right hon. Friend's proposals but I must point out that many of them will rely upon enforcement. It would be unfair if we were to enact this measure and then leave the police and others concerned get on with it. We cannot do that. The brutal truth is that the British police forces are tragically under-staffed. If this terrible evil that has been visited upon us by wilful and cowardly people now forces us to enact this measure, let us realise that it is about time that in our great cities we provided a proper force of police to enforce the law. Without the law there is nothing civil or libertarian for us to enjoy. Let us remember that the entire police force of Birmingham, the second largest city in the country, is equal to the lack of staff in our capital, London. Perhaps we can do something in addition to enacting this measure. If many of the things that we want to be done are to be done we must ensure that the police are given the assistance that they require. They must be given every encouragement, particularly with recruitment, if they are to meet this evil.
My right hon. Friend had some critics in the House today. He will probably have a few more outside as well. However, he can rest assured that he will get the full support of the House for what he has done and presented to us. It is my firm belief that he will have, too, the massive support of the majority of our fellow countrymen, the support of those who gave so much to defend democracy and liberty and are prepared to do so again. I believe that he can count on the overwhelming support of the British people.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Edward da Cann: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and indentify myself quite plainly with almost all he has said, not least with the patriotic sentiments lying behind his speech.
I have a single clear point to make and a question to put to the Home Secretary. Although I dislike this Bill very much, and some aspects greatly, I do not oppose it and will support it, for my conviction is that all the resources of the State must be mobilised to root out what my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), in his admirable maiden speech, called "this cancer" which afflicts our body politic—and, as other speakers have said, promptly. If this is not done, in the end the freedom we cherish will prove to have been used as the chief agent in its destruction.
Let us be plain. The men and the women to whom this Bill expressly refers, like others who practise terrorism at home and abroad, are no honourable patriots or idealists. They are dishonourable enemies of democracy, of liberty, of the Christian religion, and, I suspect, so extreme are the political views of some of them that they are enemies even of those whose interests they purport to serve.
As the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, the Home Secretary is assured in principle of this House's support for the Bill, however distasteful he may find it to introduce and however distasteful we may equally regard it as being, for if on advice he tells the House that it is an important weapon in the fight to achieve security, though it may set a bad precedent, we must and we shall put that weapon into his hand.
But just how adequate is this weapon? I am not clear that it is adequate.
More significant perhaps than the support which the right hon. Gentleman is re-receiving in the House is the fact that he is sure of our sympathy. Listening to him today, and listening and watching him on television the other evening, we comprehend only too well the dilemma which faces authority in a democracy.
This freedom of which we boast is a privilege to be enjoyed and cherished in every way, but one might say that our chief job on the back benches is constantly to curtail the usurpation of power by authority. If some countries enjoy freedom today, the credit is mostly due to the consistent resolution in this regard of the United Kingdom, plus, of course, those of the citizens of countries such as Southern Ireland who, as the hon. Member for


Ealing, North said, individually supported us in the dark days, as their Government, happily, does today.
Freedom is more than a privilege. Many people think, old-fashioned as they may be accused of being, that there is too much talk of rights today and too little talk of responsibilities. Freedom is a heritage to be actively defended, not least against the assaults of those who, as Milton, the English poet dead 300 years this year, said, cry liberty when they mean licence.
I say as clearly as I can that it is, and always will be, the responsibility of Government to see that the Queen's peace is kept throughout the whole United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster. The temporary reality is that the Queen's peace is in serious jeopardy, and has been now for some years.
I little thought, when I first came to this House 18 years ago, that I would not be able to post letters in my local pillar box in SW1, that the personal records of more than 20 years of public life would be blown up in an explosion by Westminster Hall, and that, simply through an accident of time, those who serve us as secretaries would so narrowly escape with their lives.
I little thought that I would see that Ministers would need bodyguards and electronic protection in their homes, or that some of my colleagues would say to me "I am concerned for my wife and children, for they see the news on television and are bound to worry." This situation is intolerable.
We have a special duty, as other hon. Members have said, to protect also those law-abiding Irish citizens, the minority in our midst. They are our friends, our neighbours, and form part in many instances of our own households.
We speak often of the rule of law, and mostly, it seems to me, without thinking through all that the phrase implies. In general terms, we can all agree that the law is the only protector of the weak against the strong, the guardian of justice and of right, the safeguard of our constitution and our liberties. But as we profess these high-sounding sentiments, let each of us in this place remember that we have an individual and collective responsibility to set an example of respect for and observance of the law of the land.
The law itself is a mere foundation. What counts equally is the strength behind it, whether that be physical or in terms of acceptability and practice.
It is evident that the law has not been fully effective. In some respects, of course, this Bill is a complete remedy. Whatever the arguments of the security forces have been, the proscription of the IRA and its membership as a public example of the Government's determination is long overdue, and, as the Home Secretary rightly said, it may not be enough and in due course perhaps other terrorist organisations will require to be proscribed.
Other matters in the Bill may be useful. But is the Bill by itself enough? To answer that question one has to pose another. Is the existing law and its procedures in all respects adequate? For example, some may feel, as I do, that in these matters the processes of justice have been habitually too slow. In the M62 murder case, it took eight months to bring these people to trial—far too long. I hope that the Home Secretary will inform the House at some time how he believes that the processes of justice in this regard can be speeded up.
I do not believe either that the processes of justice have always been as certain as they might have been. I fancy that there are some who should have been tried but have escaped and others who were tried and who escaped owing to technicalities in the law—its defects. That, I believe, is not satisfactory.
There is another question, which was also asked by hon. Members, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Are we satisfied with our success in matters of enforcement? Are we satisfied that we have the apparatus? Are we working hard enough to prevent the smuggling of arms or gelignite into this country or into Ireland? Are we satisfied with our methods of control? Are we satisfied with the strength of the police forces? I am not. I believe that we could do much to recruit special constables. Nor do we do enough to reinforce the Special Branch. These matters equally require attention. It is not enough for this House merely to pass legislation. We need to be sure also that the process of enforcement is certain.
The law, as at present drafted, does not apparently cover every aspect of matters related to terrorism, or, if it does, it is not applied with adequate vigour. I would state as a principle that any person who gives aid and comfort of any description to a terrorist—other than, for example, on humanitarian grounds to an injured person—must be severely dealt with. It is a gross affront to us all if a known terrorist is able to flaunt his views on television, or in any other public way.
We have on the statute book not only a law of high treason, to which reference has been made, not least by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson), but a law of sedition, too. Both have apparently fallen into desuetude. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) pointed out, surely the law must be put into force or, if it is too complex and too uncertain to be used in its present old form, it should be revised and re-introduced in a modern form.
It is undeniable that the situation has deteriorated. I suggest that, this Bill apart, it will continue to deteriorate unless the Government indicate a clear will and determination at all times to govern. I realise that it is inevitable that unpleasant things must be done—including temporary restrictions on our liberties and rights—of the style that we see in the Bill. Some people feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) have said, that there should be a temporary restoration of the supreme penalty for terrorist and attempted terrorist offences. I agree. I think that that is appropriate.
The feeling has existed in this country that successive administrations have not, no matter how good their intentions, prosecuted their responsibilities regarding security with adequate vigour. The nation has, I know, the will to defend our democratic free inheritance, and it has every right to demand from this House clear leadership, and it trusts this House to provide it.
What is the ambition of our people? I suggest that it is modest enough. It is to live out their lives in some sensible comfort, if it is attainable, and in health.

Perhaps people are mostly more ambitious for the future of their families than they are for themselves. But, above all, they want security and peace, and for that they have a reasonable expectancy that this Parliament is, above all, the trustee and the guardian.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: The debate recognises more than adequately the gravity of the situation, and we have listened to many thought-provoking speeches. It is perhaps invidious that I should draw attention to one particular speech but, like the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), I cannot help but refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). The hon. Gentleman's approach, his tone and his attitude were wholly admirable and right, and I would like to associate myself with every word he said.
We must all be aware that for the present Home Secretary the emergency has produced a personal strain. We respect the integrity of his approach in this matter. Those who represent Ulster constituencies would not in any way wish to delay or prevent the necessary action being taken, but unfortunately there are defects in the proposals. If we can improve the Bill without causing delay, all hon. Members should be ready to join us in doing so.
The sad fact is that we are approaching this emergency with a proper sense of urgency but neverthless in unnecessary haste. It seems unfortunate, to put it mildly, that after six years of terrorism we are not in a position to deal with what is a predictable situation. I do not think anyone would dispute that not only the words of O'Connell on television, but many instances in the past and many sources of information, would have indicated with accuracy what could be expected in this part of the United Kingdom. But it would be wrong now to dwell on regrets.
We have an emergency situation. As we address ourselves to this situation I would have hoped that hon. Members would have had an opportunity of looking at the whole problem of political terrorism. The Home Secretary misunderstood me the other day when, after he made his statement, I asked for a general debate. I was not thinking only of
Northern Ireland. I believe that a general debate on the problems of security, in so far as they arise out of political terrorism, would be of considerable help to us all. But I readily concede that action is now needed quickly and that it was perhaps right to take the first step before we have a comprehensive examination. But we must have a comprehensive examination soon.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, political terrorism is a form of war and must be tackled as such. That leads one to examine the proposition that the processes and machinery of the ordinary law may not be adequate for dealing with a war situation. Having said that, however, we should recognise that while it is a war situation it is essentially a matter for skilled police work.
As we consider the situation, we must look very much to the organisation and strength of the various police forces. It is true that police manpower in this part of the kingdom and in Ulster falls far short of the necessary level. When there is a manpower shortage, it is all the more important to ensure that the organisation of the police forces is the right sort of organisation to deal with the problems arising from terrorism. Sadly, it is my opinion that in neither Great Britain nor in Ulster is the organisation of the police forces appropriate to meet the situation.
Many of us in Ulster feel very sad that we have to go through such harrowing experiences simply because some people thought that it would be better to put the organisation of the Ulster police force on the same basis as that of the English county police forces. Whoever looks at the situation today cannot defend the decision that was taken regarding the organisation of the police force in Ulster. But while advocating changes in the organisation of police forces we must recognise that in Great Britain the scale of the problem is not the same as it is in Ulster. One would not advocate wholesale changes for Great Britain in the way that one might advocate wholesale changes for Ulster. Nevertheless, changes are necessary in the police forces in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps we shall meet with considerable difficulty because we have county police forces in this part of the kingdom

rather than a national force. But somewhere, somehow, someone must take central responsibility in providing a specialised police organisation to deal with the problems of terrorism on a national basis.
I do not suppose it is right for me to continue on the general theme for too long. We can only hope that we shall soon have an opportunity to do so. But, having the reservations that arise from the need for a general examination, I can nevertheless say that the principles behind the Bill are right in the present situation, provided we look upon them as an initial step and recognise that new steps must be quickly taken. While we may travel along the different stages of identity cards and travel permits—and there are very strong arguments for such measures—and through the stages of punishment, I emphasise that before we plant these trees we should satisfy ourselves that the ground has been prepared for them. In other words, we should be considering the need for a special law, and perhaps for special courts, before we plant too many trees on the way.
I should like to think that all hon. Members examine the Bill from the point of view that it is not only a measure to protect Great Britain but a measure aimed at defeating the IRA, which presents a threat to the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not sure that it is generally appreciated that for us in Ulster dealing with the IRA organisation in Great Britain is almost as important as dealing with it in Ulster.
I am satisfied that over a quite long period the IRA organisation in England has helped to promote and sustain, and to participate in, the campaign of violence that has been waged in Ulster. Therefore, we have our own vested interest in seeing that the IRA is quickly broken up in Great Britain. It is sensible that we plan the defeat of the IRA on a uniform basis. It is not enough for us in Ulster for the IRA to be defeated in Great Britain. Certainly it is not enough for the citizens in Great Britain to have the IRA defeated in Great Britain.
It is in that light that I should like to look at the Bill. I can readily see the wisdom—indeed, it is a necessary first step—of considering the proscription of organisations that can be associated


with the IRA campaign of violence. It is easy to write a law declaring it to be illegal, but it is a quite different kettle of fish when it comes to writing the law in such a way that it can be enforced and produce results. I have some reservations as to the way the matter is put in the Bill.
I can also see that in a situation of emergency, where there has been no planning for the situation, the Home Secretary is tempted to follow his present proposals for excluding citizens of the United Kingdom from a part of the United Kingdom. I agree with the proposition to exclude foreigners from the United Kingdom. That is the part which gives us the least difficulty. But when dealing with foreigners or non-British citizens in this respect the Home Secretary should not have his eyes set in only one direction. I am aware that nationals of European continental countries have been hired by the IRA to commit terrorist outrages. I cannot be sure whether they made their way to Ulster via Great Britain or via the Irish Republic, but wherever our controls of entry are to be they must be capable of dealing with the employment of international terrorists.
I find myself in difficulty over the proposals to restrict the movement of United Kingdom citizens. I fully understand the problem that faces the Home Secretary. It has been made exceptionally difficult because he apparently has no other law to deal with British citizens who are a terrorist menace. He resorts to this device because of that deficiency, but I think it is an unhappy step to take. It could have all sorts of consequences. It certainly has given rise to a natural and understandable fear in Ulster that we shall be the dumping ground for security risks from Great Britain. I hope that the Home Secretary will do what he can to alleviate that fear.
But it is not only on those grounds that I object to this form of exclusion. Many problems arise from it. The exemption of citizens who have resided in Great Britain for 20 years causes a problem. If my memory is correct, at least one of those charged with the Birmingham murder, for example, would be outside the proposals for exclusion.
There is another aspect which is worth thinking about. If a Northern Ireland citizen who has been resident here is excluded from Great Britain, where does he go? What happens if he goes, for instance, to Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have a problem on his hands, because the Home Secretary will have taken a decision that the man represents a terrorist threat. Will the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, be the person who is asked to deal with him? It is wrong in principle that if a citizen represents a threat to the United Kingdom, the threat should be shifted from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
There may be all sorts of funny consequences. Many IRA terrorists—I would say all of them—while legally British citizens, do not regard themselves as such. Under the laws of the Irish Republic they have a right, and undoubtedly claim it, to be Irish citizens. In many circumstances, therefore, they will elect to go to the Irish Republic, which will undoubtedly receive them. We in Ulster would, therefore, need to be satisfied that the control along the land frontier will be as efficient as it will be at the airports and seaports.
I hope that the Home Secretary will give proper consideration to the amendments tabled in my name and the names of my colleagues in respect of the law relating to the exclusion of United Kingdom citizens from parts of their own country. It is wrong in principle, whether or not we are prepared to concede it in an emergency. If we are, it needs to be tidied up. If that is the way to handle the matter in the short term until there is adequate law for the situation, we should also be thinking of reciprocity for all parts of the United Kingdom.
I have touched briefly on the problem of the travelling terrorist. The Home Secretary has told us that we can expect an order for Northern Ireland similar to the draft order that has been circulated in respect of Great Britain. But "similar" is a word which leaves many questions unanswered.
The order for Great Britain is aimed at control at airports and seaports. 1 should like to know specifically how the authorities propose to handle the question of the land frontier of Northern


Ireland. It is absolutely no argument to say that it is impossible totally to close the land frontier. I concede that it is impossible to close it 100 per cent., but there can never be any justification for leaving our defences open more than is necessary. A great deal can be done more effectively to seal the land frontier. Those of us who are from Ulster will take a very poor view of any travelling control regulations which are not applied with the same sense of purpose along the land frontier as they are applied at other access points.
Undoubtedly some hon. Members wonder when this will end. The Home Secretary, with commendable prudence, said that it may not be a short struggle. I impress on hon. Members that, whatever the time scale, there is no political solution to this problem in relation to the IRA. The problem is to defeat the IRA. As we set about it in the Bill, which I hope is regarded by all as a useful first step which can be improved, we must seek to make law which will be effective and which can be vigorously enforced. I have seen the consequences of making law and not enforcing it. Much of the law proposed in the Bill for Great Britain is already law in Northern Ireland and it has been enforced. Therefore, as we put our hands to the task, I hope that we shall pass the Bill in such a way that it will be vigorously and effectively enforced.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: We have heard that the Catholic Church leadership has said that injustice breeds terrorism. Today we have heard from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that terrorism breeds injustice. Both cannot be right in the Northern Ireland context.
Many of the people who have come to my constituency over the last few years to get away from the troubles have told me that failure to meet the moderates' simple requests of the late 1960s for "one man, one vote" and no discrimination in jobs and housing led to the injustices which have bred the present reign of terrorism we are discussing. Nevertheless, in the light of the outrage in Birmingham last Thursday, my constituents wholeheartedly welcome these measures.
I was probably the first Member of the House to arrive at the scene of the carnage in Birmingham last Friday morning, at about 7.30. Policemen were still pulling out bits of bodies from the wreckage. How there are as many survivors from the two bomb blasts I shall never know. I have used both pubs many times in the past. The scene which people have witnessed on the television and read about in the Press has brought outrage across the country. Many other people consider it an outrage that the House is discussing this matter only subsequent to the bombing outrage in Birmingham.
My constituents in Perry Barr will expect very tough, firm action from the Home Secretary. They will also expect the action to be fair and to be seen to be fair. I implore the Home Secretary to heed the request made from both sides of the House that the action taken must be seen to be fair.
The wide scope of the Bill is frightening in some respects. I agree with what has been said by more than one hon. Gentleman opposite. People outside do not yet realise how wide is the scope. They will, because undoubtedly people who are arrested and detained will subsequently be found to be blameless. I hope that when they are so found citizens will accept the decision and that no private enterprise action will be taken. As least three of those who have been arrested and charged—and I am ashamed to say this—are my constituents. Above all, we must appeal to our fellow citizens not to be led or misled by those who would seek to capitalise on the situation and divide us on cultural and religious grounds.
Having given the Bill a welcome—a welcome which my constituents would wish me to give—I question most seriously whether it will stop the bombing of our cities. It goes without saying that I hope it will, but until we can replace our bankrupt policy on Northern Ireland by a policy which emphatically places on citizens of that part of the United Kingdom the responsibility of settling their own differences we shall not see an end to the problem or an end to the bombing of our cities.
However severe the penalties which may be proposed today or in future, I do


not believe that they will have an effect for more than a few days or weeks. Only the phased withdrawal of the British presence from that part of the United Kingdom will bring the ultimate solution. I made this call during the Summer Recess because it is the correct thing to do in Northern Ireland and not just because it is a demand made by one section or as a response to the bombing and killing of our citizens. It is the only way.
I give the Government due warning that as the months go by the cry for withdrawal will come from outside. That call and non-reaction to it will begin to affect other Government policies which have nothing to do with Northern Ireland. They will affect the Government's industrial and social policies. Everything will be sucked in unless we take a bold initiative. There is now the excuse—and this is a terrible thing to have to say about last week—for the Government to take the initiative.
I only hope that the Prime Minister will show more interest, or will indicate that he shows more interest, in this problem. My constituents have written to me about that. They have talked to me about it and it has been discussed by my hon. Friends. It is about time that it was said in this House.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: A number of hon. Members have referred to the enforcement of this Bill. We are all wasting our time unless it is enforced once it reaches the statute book.
I am sorry that neither the Secretary of State for the Home Department nor the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present. We all know that at funerals in Northern Ireland members of the IRA have been recognised by the security forces and the police, but they have been instructed not to do their duty and arrest those men. My first question to the Government, therefore, is this: if we pass the Bill and it receives the Royal Assent, will it be enforced, or will the police and the Army once again be made the laughing stock of the neighbourhood by being told that they must not enforce the law because murderers are participating in a funeral? That is the first question. All I want is an answer "Yes" or "No".
Secondly, the police cannot enforce the provisions contained in the Bill unless they have the support of the public and the House of Commons. We all know that we have some colleagues who are only too quick to jump in and attack the police without having been into the merits of the case and without examining the evidence, and we must expect that when the Bill has been enacted there will be a campaign by those who support the IRA to discredit the police in executing the provisions of the Bill. There will be malicious and deliberate complaints against the police.
My second question to the Minister who is to reply to the debate is this. Will he grasp another nettle which is not touched on in the Bill and institute within the next week a proper complaints procedure—which the police have been asking for for years—a complaints procedure which has some teeth for dealing with malicious complaints? I do not mean that procedure to be used when a complaint made in good faith is found not to be well based. I mean it to be used when malicious complaints are made.
We owe it to our police that the full force of the Attorney-General should step in with an action for criminal libel. It requires no change in the law; it merely requires a little determination on the part of the Government of the day to back up the police forces. Police establishments have already been mentioned.
In two places in the Bill—in lines 20 and 21 on page 13 and lines 5 and 6 on page 14—these words are used:
No woman shall in pursuance of this paragraph be searched except by a woman.
That being so, we must make sure that we have enough women police officers. The Price sisters were not men. Terrorists come in both sexes. We must make sure that our police force is up to establishment in women as well as men. Too often in the past, because of poor pay and conditions and overwork leading to a great shortage in the police force, chief officers have been persuaded to write down the establishment so that there is not too glaring a gap between the establishment and the number of men and women they can recruit. Chief police officers should be encouraged to put in writing the establishment which in their


professional judgment they need to discharge their task, so that the gap between establishment and reality is apparent, instead of the written establishment being adjusted so that there is no large apparent gap between the strength of the force and the actual establishment. For too long we have had this charade.
I gave notice of these questions to the Home Secretary's office at 10.30 this morning. Will the Home Secretary take power by order to compel captains of aircraft and ships who have brought to this country people on whom an expulsion order is served to take those people out again? If a captain of an aircraft or ship who is willing to transport a terrorist on whom an expulsion order has been served cannot be found, the effect of the expulsion order is nugatory. Unless there are penalties for failing to convey people on whom an expulsion order has been served, the procedure becomes to some extent a charade. The apprehensions of captains of aircraft and ships are reasonable apprehensions, and unless there is a method by which people on whom expulsion orders have been served can be transported the effect of the order is nugatory. I want an answer to that question—and that is why I gave notice to the Home Secretary.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am asking for answers in the Minister's winding-up speech. I am trying to keep my speech as short as possible so that other hon. Members may have an opportunity to speak.
With the new rights of arrest the question of "reasonable suspicion" arises. As any experienced detective knows, much of a detective's work is done on intuition and not on evidence which he may not yet have gathered. That is particularly so in the form of detective work concerned with the prevention of terrorism. Is "reasonable suspicion" subjective to the police officer making the arrest, or is it a "reasonable suspicion" in the mind of the magistrates or the superintendent who signs the warrant?
In several clauses there is the requirement that a magistrate should sign the warrant and, failing that, a police superin-

tendent. It is likely that sea ports will be used by undesirable people coming into the country, rather than airports, and in many parts of the United Kingdom, including the West Country, policemen may easily be 30 miles away from the nearest superintendent. That means a 60-mile round trip by car to get a warrant. Magistrates can be hard to find when they are wanted in a hurry.
For provincial forces which are not equipped with electronic links with Scotland Yard it can take up to a week to get fingerprints up to London by post and the reply back again. I mention that because the Bill gives power to hold for 48 hours unless that period is extended by the Home Secretary for up to another five days. The Home Secretary may find himself rather busy unless police forces are equipped with electronic links.
The greatest problem for police forces will probably be the identification of people coming into the country from the Republic of Eire. When somebody arrives in this country and seeks employment—and I put this point to the Minister of State in the absence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; indeed there is nobody else on the Government Front Bench to whom I can put the point—he has to have a national insurance card before the employer can take him on. I suggest that the employer should notify to the police the name and national insurance number of his employees. This particularly applies to the "lump" in the building industry. There would then be some record of the movements of persons who otherwise may be extremely difficult to identify. When a person is out of his own country there is not necessarily anybody else to whom one can appeal as an independent witness of identification. It can be a real problem for police officers and security forces. If the Minister in reply will be kind enough to cover this point, I shall leave it there.
Legislation will not have the effect which most of us would like to see unless the Government of the day, public opinion and the House of Commons are prepared to give the police force and the Armed Forces, if they are involved, the backing that it is so essential for them to have if they are to discharge the task which we impose on them.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: There are occasions when the job of the House of Commons is to vote rather than talk about Bills which are before it, and tonight is such an occasion. Therefore, I intend to restrict myself to only a few points which seem to bear on the content of the Bill, either in terms of what should be in the Bill and is not or of what is in the Bill and should not be there.
Some hon. Members have said that they believe there should be a military withdrawal from Northern Ireland and that the contents of the Bill will not succeed unless there is a military withdrawal. It would be a great pity if the moral defectives who planted the bombs in Birmingham and elsewhere were to get the message that any hon. Member had expressed that view because of the bombings and the casualties which resulted from them. I think I am right in saying that so far in the debate not one hon. Member has expressed the view that there should be a military withdrawal from Northern Ireland who did not hold that view before and who has not expressed it on many previous occasions. If the bombings were intended to have that kind of result, judging by this debate they have failed.
A number of contributors to the debate have said that they believe we are tackling the symptoms rather than the disease. Many Ministers and others in the House have said in past years that one cannot solve political problems in Northern Ireland by military means. I believe that the disease is the terrorism and that that is a more fundamental threat to our society than any of the political content of the Northern Ireland situation. Recourse to violence is the element that we must endeavour to root out. There is nothing in the political situation throughout Ireland, or within Northern Ireland alone, which could not be much more easily solved if the violence could be suppressed.
It is true that there cannot be a military solution to the political problem. It is equally true that there is no political solution to the military problem. We cannot, by anything we do in Northern Ireland, deter these people from the use of violence to achieve one end or another. If the people who planted their bombs in

Birmingham for allegedly IRA purposes somehow achieved their political objectives, they or some of their assistants or some other people would plant bombs to achieve some other political purpose. Around the central core of these people there are always others prepared to assist in the process. Therefore, it is the police content of these measures which is the important thing and not the political background against which those police measures are taken.
I have a few practical points to address to the Minister in respect either of the Bill itself or of measures which might follow. First, I support the call for serious consideration to be given to the aspect of identity cards with photographs and fingerprints. This is not a provision which could be put into the present Bill. It will take a long time to make that change, and there are strong objections. It is not the issuing of identity cards or the fact that one has to carry an identity card that is the problem. It is the powers one must give to the police to stop people and ask for identity cards. That is the infringement of liberty that is involved, but it is an infringement which at present I am inclined to accept. I believe that, if present circumstances continue, most people in the country would be prepared to accept that infringement of liberty. We should look at the matter in the medium term, although, as I have said, such a provision cannot be included in the Bill tonight.
The second practical point I shall not discuss at length because it arises on new Clause 1—when we finally come to that stage around dawn tomorrow. I mention the point now so that any legal Members who are present may take the opportunity to consider it.
Finally, I find it odd that there is nothing in the Bill which tightens up controls over explosives and chemicals, fertilisers, etc., which can be used to make explosives. It may be that the Government take the view that the controls are as tight and as effective as they can be made. If that is the case, I find it surprising. To my knowledge, they have not been changed for a long time, and they were written into law at a time when we did not face the difficulties which now confront us. We have regulations which require chemists to keep records of the poisons they issue to people. It may be


that a provision along similar lines would be desirable, if it was practicable to initiate, in respect of explosive materials and chemicals which can be made into them.

Mr. David Lane: There was a tightening up by the last Government. But I echo the hon. Gentleman's request to the Minister of State to bring us up to date on what further tightening up of explosives controls may be desirable.

Mr. Cunningham: I was about to conclude my brief remarks with a request to my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say whether the Government were satisfied that the regulations were as tight as they could be in the present circumstances.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I too intend to make only a few brief remarks, because I know that a considerable number of hon. Members still wish to speak.
I add my welcome to the Bill. I think that it will give a welcome indication of the first positive step to have been taken for some time by the House of Commons. I hope that it will be the successful positive step which is so earnestly required in this country.
I wish to make two or three practical points. I endorse wholeheartedly the suggestion that identity cards should be introduced. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, that is impractical immediately under the terms of the present Bill. I hope, however, that the Minister of State will convey to his right hon. Friend my belief that at some future stage the country will be fully prepared and willing to take on the mantle of an identity card in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates).
I suggest also that embarkation cards are a vital step in trying to control the traffic between here and Ireland. Again, the necessary provisions for these could be implemented at some future stage.
It is sad to realise that only by some fortuitous piece of police work were the Price sisters' gang of bombers detained at London Airport after their activities at the Old Bailey and in Whitehall. That

was possible only because of an industrial dispute which prevented the aircraft taking off on time. It should be made well nigh impossible for people to travel between the two islands while the emergency is on—and we are slap-bang in the middle of an emergency. I hope that most of our citizens would accept that this is an inevitable situation during the current period. I believe that the residents of this country are ready for it and will accept it for the time being. Entry into this country should be made very difficult, and I hope that at some future stage the House will recognise the need for such restrictions.
I ask the Minister of State to explain an anomaly which has developed over the statement which the Home Secretary made last week when the IRA bomber in this country died at his own hand. The Home Secretary rightly suggested to the Birmingham Constabulary that there should be no public display and no uniforms, and that any action which it was felt necessary to take would be fully supported.
When the body eventually arrived in Ulster, we had the appearance of black berets, glasses, armbands and the complete panoply of the customary IRA graveside funeral. I ask the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if we accept that Ulster is part of the United Kingdom, why it was stopped in this country but allowed to go ahead in another part of the United Kingdom. These are some of the many questions to which people will want answers during the debate.
I hope that the Government will do all they can to prevail upon the broadcasting authorities to use their fine judgment over how they interpret the Bill. I was disheartened on Saturday morning—perhaps it was Friday morning—when I read that the broadcasting authorities were not prepared to comment upon their role when this legislation was on the statute book. I hope that all the broadcasting authorities will be approached by the Home Secretary to ensure that our forces and the people of this country get the right and responsible amount of support that is so necessary at this time.
I hope that my hon. Friends will welcome the Bill. I declare my conviction that hanging at some stage will have to


be reintroduced, but I do not wish to hold up the passage of the Bill by pressing for that amendment to be made tonight or tomorrow morning. However, I believe that at some stage in future this House will have to consider that eventuality.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will enable the Bill to go through. I certainly welcome and support it and will do nothing to hinder its progress tonight.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: When speaking in any debate in this House I think that one ought to think very carefully about what is to be said and how it is to be said, and, although not always successful, be as logical and reasonable as possible. However, when speaking in a debate on Northern Ireland one must try to be more careful and more thoughtful, and have a deep sense of wondering. Has what I have to say been said before? Has what we propose been tried before? Has it all failed before? These are some of the questions that go through our minds.
Is our effort to try to apply logic to what appears to be an illogical situation an abandonment of reason? Certainly what we are experiencing now from the terrorists is an abandonment of reason. When this prevails, emotion and hysteria become natural reactions and may hold sway if we are not firm and resolute in our actions.
I think that one of our responsibilities as elected representatives is to do what we can to calm the emotions. If we do not. we shall fail in the task that we are trying to achieve.
I have already said that these people are not concerned about one section of our community or another. They are just against people. They use people. They kill and maim people. Their very objective is to create chaos and division in our community.
This must not happen. We must put firmly on record in this House tonight that in the latest outrage in Birmingham last Thursday a normal cross-section of our Birmingham community, irrespective of colour, religion or origins, were the victims, and that we unite with them and all our people to be rid of the mindless

lunatic fringe which is repugnant and alien to our community.
We must have calmness. We must avoid backlash. We want no division of our people. We must allow the police to do their job without hindrance or distraction. The Birmingham and West Midlands police and the Special Branch have certainly done an excellent job. I pay them that tribute.
I think that it is generally agreed that something had to be done at this time. I welcome the Bill. People will quote the same old phrase that comes out in any debate in this House on Government decisions, "Too little and too late". Perhaps that will be so if people shout out the headlines and ignore the small print.
There are plenty of headlines, and plenty of newspapers to print them, such as "Ban the IRA", "Bring the troops out", "Restore capital punishment", and so on, as though each headline and each statement in itself was a solution to the problem. Such headlines will satisfy the public for a while, but none will solve the problem. Let me say to those who claim that there is public pressure and a demand to restore capital punishment that public pressure is as great to bring the troops out now, but they do not push for that. Leaving aside whether I agree or disagree about one or the other, one thing of which I am certain is that, in itself, pushing as hard and as often as some are trying to do will not solve this problem.

Mrs. Knight: Mrs. Knight rose——

Mr. Tierney: I shall conclude my speech in a moment to give other hon. Members a chance to take part in the debate. Perhaps the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak later.
It is always the strict interpretation and application of the small print that is important in any legislation. To make this measure effective will need the widest publicity and understanding of our people. They are not to be blinded with headlines and one-headline solutions. We must appeal to our people to understand what the Bill will mean in terms of law, and appeal for their full and constant co-operation with the police and those in authority to ensure its successful application.
In a war on terrorism all our people must defend themselves because all are


in danger. The success or non-success of what is proposed will, as I have said, depend not on slogans but on community activity and co-operation to make the small print of the Bill work; for example, how effective we can be in getting information about where meetings are held, who holds meetings, how do we get to them, and so on. We shall need the greatest co-operation of the community, including the Irish community, to get the kind of information and co-operation that we want. How do we get to know the people who help them out of the country, who help them into the country, who harbour them and co-operate with them in any way? I think that these are everyday, practical things that will ensure the success of the Bill.
It will be how effectively we can apply the numerous small but important items in a practical way in everyday life that will ensure its greatest success, and I am sure that the Bill will be welcomed by most reasonable people in this country. I hope that it will involve them in active and practical co-operation.

8.48 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The first bomb that was placed in Birmingham was placed in my constituency. The first person who was killed in Birmingham was killed in my constituency. My own constituency office was blown up by a terrorist bomb. It has been suggested to me that these things happened because I have on frequent occasion spoken out against the IRA. Whether or not that is true, I am certain that the day when Members of this House keep silent for fear of what may happen outside will be the day when the authority and honour of this House is severely breached.
I felt that capital punishment for terrorism would be a deterrent, and I accept that there are different arguments about that. I am sorry that that matter does not properly come under the heading "Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill". I thought it did. But the Bill must satisfy the people as well as protect them.
The thing that some of us in Birmingham have been most anxious about is that innocent Irish people should be attacked. If that should happen, it would be because it was felt outside this place that

not sufficient heed had been paid to the use of strength against the kind of terrorism that we have seen in our city.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that that situation cannot be allowed to spread over the sea to this country. It is important to cease the low profile approach which has been followed for so long when British people are in danger and British property is under attack.
I have in my hand a letter from a man with a timber yard in Belfast. That yard has been sullied and attacked by the bombers. He makes the reasonable suggestion that something should be done to deter the petrol bomber. He says that apparently the soldiers are allowed to deter the petrol bomber only if the petrol bomb is likely to cause loss of life:
The letter states:
… hence, they still throw them into our firm at quite regular intervals" and they have had over 1,000 of them.
Inside the last three months, the army was in our firm and they saw a petrol bomb about to be thrown. An officer was present and stopped a Soldier shooting. Thereby, several thousands pounds worth of damage was caused.
I have been in that timber yard and dodged the bullets there and seen the petrol bombs. When the livelihood of British people is threatened by this kind of action, I hope that the Bill, as I believe it must, will protect them and their property.
I want to urge the Minister to look at some of the things that have happened in Northern Ireland, where the IRA has been banned, and assure us that the whole armoury against terrorism will be stepped up not only for the people in England, Scotland and Wales but for the poor people in the North of Ireland who have suffered terrorism for so long.
We must not only prevent terrorism. We must also prevent intimidation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said we must ensure that help and succour are not given to IRA supporters. I am anxious that there should be no intimidation, as has happened so often in Ulster, where people have had a gun pushed at them and have been forced through terrorist tactics to allow their front room to be used as a gun post and to give money to the IRA. People in the North of Ireland have been afraid to bear witness


against the IRA bombers and this has prevented guilty people from being brought to justice.
On the subject of explosives, I understand that there is a chemical—I do not know its name—which can be mixed with fertiliser to ensure that it is no longer explosive. It has been suggested to me that such an addition would increase the cost of the fertiliser by £5 a ton or 25 per cent. If it is true that it is the cost which is deterring the Government from taking action, I beg them to think again.
It should never be said that we in this House give in to terrorists or that we should come out of Northern Ireland, because that is the prime part of the terrorists' objective. I beg hon. Members to understand what they are saying when they urge that course. It is high time that we said to the suffering people of Ulster, who for so long have been bombed and put in fear of their lives, "We are with you. We are all the same country. We can no longer tolerate what you put up with and it is not just the attack on us that has made us feel this way." When British people are in danger of their lives on British soil, they have every right to expect the British Army to protect them. I trust that we shall always do so.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I shall follow the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) only by saying that I wish tonight more to pay tribute to the courage with which she has spoken out on many occasions than to record my long-standing disagreement with her on the specific issue of capital punishment. That is an argument we shall have very soon in another context, and I do not think it should enter into the debate tonight.
That these measures or something very like them were needed and had to be introduced seems to me very clear. No one can deny it. We have all had evidence from the shock waves of our own constituency mail, reflecting the shock waves of the explosion in Birmingham just exactly a week ago tonight, of the strong public feelings as people here now realise for the first time what many in the Province of Northern Ireland have

realised for many years about the actual effects of terrorism of this kind.
But that these measures of themselves cannot defeat terrorists should not be denied. These measures may be necessary, but they cannot be a sufficient part of the battle that is now joined, because that battle is essentially one for hearts and minds. It is not a battle that can be carried out on the streets with bullets or with the bombs of the terrorists. It is essentially a battle for the minds of our fellow citizens and, most of all, for the minds of those of our fellow citizens in this country who are themselves of Irish descent.
Least of all is this a battle that can be carried out in the atmosphere of civic vengeance which would be carried over into the antiseptic environs of the execution chamber. We have to be able to show to all our fellow citizens, and especially to those of Irish extraction, that it is here a liberal society, a society respecting the classical freedoms of speech and assembly, that is under threat. It is that kind of society that is confronting the terrorists today.
These Fascist hoodlums—that is really all they are—have perverted and stained the traditions that they claim to invoke. It has never been the role of the terrorist in society to enlarge freedoms where he is confronting a democratic society. Indeed, I think it was an Irish Republican Army gunman of a previous generation who said "The only good thing about liberty is fighting for it." The answer to O'Connell and his fellow gangsters today is not to turn this country into an armed camp. There must be nothing in the legislation which allows licence for the agent provocateur, for the malignant informer or for the private quarrel.
I have, and have always had, the greatest admiration for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He will understand when I say we are taking perhaps more from him than we would from some other Home Secretary. He will also understand why some of us will be raising points of detail in Committee later.
If the Bill diminishes some of our civil liberties, it must diminish the liberties of all of us equally. It must not allow the mechanism of discrimination and the


power of search, arrest, detention and deportation which it applies to enter into the system of this country. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us assurances today of his hopes for a parallel legislation, for an independent review procedure, for complaints of the kind to which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hys1op) referred, although I would put a slightly different interpretation upon the complaints procedure from the one he used.
I accept that the initial executive decisions in this procedure under the Bill will be for the Home Secretary. It is a lonely decision and not one which I envy. Essentially we have to have a situation in which particularly the minority community in British who might be brought into conflict with the police because of some of the powers in this Bill—Clause 1(6) in particular—have confidence in the police.
Three years ago a Select Committee of the House, examining relations between the police and another immigrant community—the coloured community, particularly the coloured community in London—drew attention to the fact that if there was to be harmony in relations between the police and this community, there had to be an independent review procedure. I have long believed that that was necessary, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can indicate that it is in his mind to bring such a procedure forward. We are introducing at a later stage in new Clause 5 what is essentially a probing amendment to search his mind on this matter. However, I believe it has to be done if we are to have full confidence in the police in discharging the new and onerous powers which are being given to them in this legislation.
It must not become permanent legislation. My right hon. Friend, and the civilised values he represents, is in one sense the best ultimate argument against the sneak gunman and the cowardly bomber. It is the values he represents and the value of a society which proceeds by reason and by argument and by not giving way to pressure from any source which is unreasonable and irrational which must be sustained. This is the answer to the values of the gunmen and their way of life. The Bill cannot be the framework, and we must not slip

into the trap of ever more Draconian legislation if the terror continues, as indeed it might.
The right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell) said that the Bill could not outlaw terrorism. It cannot, but it might be a step on the way to containing it. It cannot be more. If the terror continues we must be careful with what we do. There is an old saying that nothing endures like the provisional. Progressively more repressive legislation linked to no solution in Northern Ireland would guarantee that nothing endured like the Provisional, and that is something we do not want.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: Like many other hon. Members I have received a great many letters on this subject, no doubt partly because my constituency is within seven to 12 miles of the centre of Birmingham. Feelings are very strong, stronger than on any other subject I have known in the four and a half years I have been a Member of the House. I fully understand and appreciate the strength of those feelings.
I must tell certain hon. Members that there has been no panic whatever in the letters I have received. Only two or three of a very large number have mentioned the possibility of withdrawing our troops from Northern Ireland. My constituents, no doubt like the constituents of other hon. Members, look to us to deal with this matter calmly, coolly and with great firmness and determination.
The present bomb outrages in the Midlands and elsewhere in England have firmly reminded everyone, including those who regarded Northern Ireland as a far away place, that the emergency is now here on our very doorsteps. They have also brought home that the Government's first duty is to protect the people and to safeguard their rights and property, and that everything else the Government do is secondary. Even the most deeply charged political issues must be subordinated to this prime duty of the Government.
I therefore welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but I believe with some of my hon. Friends that it has been brought in very late. These measures could and should have been introduced a long time


ago. Also, I do not believe that in some respects the Bill goes far enough. Terms of imprisonment may be an ineffective punishment for terrorists. Apart from the possibility of rescue there is also the chance of political amnesty. I support those who object to the media giving the opportunity to terrorists to talk to the public. Believing as I do, and as the great majority of my constituents do, in the death penalty, I nevertheless welcome that it will not be dealt with today but at a later stage, and very soon.
I was glad to hear today that the Government of the Irish Republic are to take sterner action against the IRA and have promised to collaborate more closely with the British Government in dealing with terrorism. This is absolutely vital.
There are two other aspects of equal importance in supporting and making this measure more effective. The first entails an increase in the activities and strength of the police, particularly the Special Branch. Secondly, there is the need to train the public to be constantly alert and on the look-out for anything suspicious which might lead to an act of terrorism.
The activities of the Special Branch are not always understood or appreciated, either in this House or by the public. It has a duty to seek out evil-doers and prevent them from committing offences, thereby preventing loss of life, wounding and so on. By now the IRA must have developed a number of cells in different parts of this country. Obviously it will try to plan to make its outrages as wide-spread throughout the nation as possible. Only relentless determination on the part of the Government to seek out these cells and root them out will satisfy an angered and somewhat bewildered public opinion.
The public, in England at any rate, are still ignorant of the effects of terrorism. It is a long time since the blitz. Long years of peace and our long tradition of peaceable living have suddenly been rudely interrupted. We may again have to teach people not only to be constantly on the look-out for anything suspicious but also what to do if an emergency occurs. For instance, there should be an increase in first-aid training, lessons on how to deal with blast injuries, what to do when the house falls down, and so

on. Those in public places may have to suffer some inconvenience for the sake of their own safety.
Above all, the nation and the nation's will is now on trial. With a resolute and united nation we can defeat this tiny handful of cruel and desperate men. Perhaps from this threat and from this appalling suffering a better spirit of selflessness and patriotism may arise. We must all hope that that will be so.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: My daughter was only 500 yards away from the massacre that occurred last week, so I am by no means personally indifferent—indeed, no one could be—to the hideous crime which took place then. Nevertheless, I feel that this legislation has been introduced in a mood of panic. This House ought not to legislate in such a mood, and I regret that we are doing so. If anyone doubts that there is a mood of panic abroad, he has only to listen to the hysterical clamour from the Conservative benches for the return of hanging—something which would make no contribution whatever to the problem of combating a ruthless urban guerrilla movement which poses serious problems for our country.
Worse, in some senses, than the clamour for hanging—which was crude enough in itself—was the speech by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who started talking about the courts being too slow and too concerned with technicalities. He suggested that there are some other legal methods which he would like to see adopted rather than the due process of law. That is evidence enough that we are on a dangerous path in embarking on this kind of legislation, though I accept that the Government must take action to combat the guerrilla movement that we face.
This legislation appears to be a crude copy of the 1939 Act. I inquired a little while ago about the 20-year provision for residents as part of the provisions of the exclusion orders. The answer was not that there was a logical reason but that it just happened to be in the 1939 Act. I do not think that we should promulgate legislation of a serious nature on that basis. I accept entirely that we need legislation for the rigorous control of movement of persons in and out of the


country. That is essential, and we need to consider the problem. I believe that the Government have paid insufficient attention to the sale and general use of explosives and examination of the way in which materials which are meant to be harmless can be used for unlawful purposes. If it is a fact, for example, that fertiliser can be rendered innocuous, the Government as a matter of urgency should consider doing so as a way of limiting the opportunity to get hold of dangerous substances.
I have the greatest reservations about the proposition of exclusion from certain parts of the kingdom. This is the hated South African system of endorsement—namely, arbitrary executive action to compel by fiat that a man or woman must go from one area to another not because they have committed a crime but because they are suspected of contemplating an unlawful act. I hope that the Government will consider seriously the consequences of this kind of legislation.
I also have some reluctance about extending the powers of the police. Their powers are already immense and are exercised vigorously when it happens to suit the police. I am not persuaded that we require the power to hold individuals for seven days without trial and without charge to tackle the urban guerrilla problem. It may be that in the present circumstances some such Draconian power is required. If that is so, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said—namely, that we need careful independent reviews as to how these powers are used.
In Northern Ireland there has been legislation far more Draconian than this. We have had internment without trial, and police action. We have had torture. Let us not play that down. It happened. It was a disgrace to this country and to that territory. Yet, despite repression and massive police and military action, there is a murder every day in Northern Ireland. That should remind us that legislation of itself will bring us no nearer a solution to the problem.

Mr. Cryer: Perhaps my hon. Friend will point out that for most of the years he is talking about, and certainly up to 1973, capital punishment existed. It made not the slightest difference to the rate of slaughter in Northern Ireland. Is

that not an important point to counteract the cry that comes from the Opposition benches for the restoration of capital punishment?

Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend has a fair point, but I shall not pursue it as I promised to make only a brief contribution to the debate. In embarking on this legislation we are taking a dark and sombre road. I have grave doubts that it will solve the problem of tackling the ruthless urban guerrilla enemy that exists. I am afraid that it may be a substitute for the policy initiative, the new thought and the new policy that is required to solve the Northern Ireland problem.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I welcome the Bill, as I am sure the overwhelming majority of my constituents and of the country welcome it. I agree with those of my hon. Friends who wish that the legislation would go a bit further. We should have something to strengthen explosives control. I join in the paeans of praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) for his excellent speech, in which he underlined the necessity for identity cards. I agree that passports are a good and necessary alternative. I think that the police force should be substantially strengthened, and that this legislation should perhaps be extended beyond the IRA, because the public are just as horrified by the bombings of the Angry Brigade and other groups. Their horror is not just limited to the activities of the IRA.
In considering banning IRA appearances on television, I am inclined to disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), who said that we need to understand the mentality of the IRA people who appear on television. I do not think we need to understand their mentality. There is nothing magic about it. It is roughly the same sort of working machinery as anyone else's. We just hold that mentality in contempt. That is a simple matter to understand for which we do not require offensive displays on television.
I have time only to state the main reason for my welcome of the Bill. It is a fundamental reason. I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the extremely deep, powerful and


united will of the people. The Home Secretary said that Part I would not reduce terrorism but would remove an affront to the British people. It will certainly remove an affront, but it will also help to reduce terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that it will not.
The Home Secretary understates the rational cast for the Bill, as I am frightened he may understate the rational case for capital punishment for terrorism. It is true that many people are asking for vengeance. It is equally true that many people ask only for constitutional and legitimate action to defend this realm from attack. They dread that if the Government do not act, maverick groups, without the backing of legality will act in a way that will only make the situation far worse and will increase terrorism.
Both those attitudes must be taken into consideration, and a Government who failed to do so would act not only at their peril but at the peril of the nation. I do not mean that the Government are wise to give in to the temptation of political popularity. My point is that by doing what the people demand they will be uniting the people in the fight against terrorism.
This sort of legislation, however shocking it may be to those of us who revere the concept of civil liberties—I give ground to no one in my concern for them—is justified in this case because it is the sort of legislation the country wants. For most people in the country, life itself comes before a reasonable infringement of liberties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that this was different from ordinary warfare and more terrible. It is certainly not the weapons which make it more terrible; it is not even the injuries which make it more terrible. It is the fact that we in this country are not at present prepared for war. We are not on a war footing. It is a shock; we are stunned; we are not ready. We do not take precautions; we do not look about us; we do not keep ourselves alert for danger.
The Bill will help to put us on that war footing because the will of the people will be overwhelmingly behind the Government. We will be able the better to combat terrorism if in our alertness we

provide information for the security forces without which terrorism will not be halted. We will be able the better to combat terrorism if maverick groups are not allowed to respond in a way in which it is the duty of the Government to respond. This Bill, by responding to the public will, will achieve the response of the people and, therefore, will be far more likely to stop the terrorists. That is essentially my main reason for supporting it.

9.20 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: All who have listened to the debate from the galleries or who read about it tomorrow will agree that the standard of the debate has been very high. The debate has been conducted in a calm, thoughtful and generally constructive atmosphere which has done away with the fear expressed that events would prevent such a calm debate taking place. I am sure that all hon. Members will have been impressed by the speech, following those from the two Front Benches, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden). I agree with a great deal of what he said, but I confess that I would like to believe that he was wrong in saying that there has to be a choice between vengeance and victory.
The whole House will have been delighted by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). It was amusing, firm and very lucid, and for me it disposed of one of the objections I had in my mind about the imposition or use of identity cards. I had always felt—this fear was expressed by the Home Secretary—that these documents could be easily forged. If that were so, they would provide a measure of security, which they might not otherwise expect, for those carrying forged identity cards. I hope that the Home Office will look into the type of identity card mentioned and see whether it can be effectively used. There would be nothing worse than an identity card which could easily be forged and so provide a person with extra security to which he was not entitled.
A sour note was struck by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in using the phrase "clandestine body" of those who are to be appointed by the Home Secretary to consider representations. It was an unnecessarily sinister phrase, which can only tend to devalue


those gentlemen when their names are known—and known they will be because it has been made clear by the Home Secretary that their names will be published. The repetition of the phrase, not only in a question but in his speech, by the hon. Gentleman is something I regret. A risk is entailed for those who are to carry out this job. When their names are known they will be put at greater risk, but it is in the public's interest to know who these gentlemen are so that their calibre can be judged.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) said that he was not elected to the House to abridge his constituents' civil liberties. That seems curious logic when one bears in mind that perhaps one of the most important liberties which we enjoy in this democratic society is the right to go about our lawful ways in safety. In my view the House has a duty to make this possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) spoke, as did other hon. Members, about improving the facilities and conditions for the police force and emphasised the part that could be played by the Special Constabulary. That point was expanded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who said that additional members of the Special Branch might be recruited. This seems to be very important because the Special Branch plays a very important part in this sort of high security work. I appreciate that there are difficulties in recruiting people to this work, but I hope that it will be regarded as a matter of high priority by the Home Office when it considers the further enforcement that will become necessary.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said that the only way we would solve the problem would be to declare our intention to disengage in Northern Ireland, end the emergency and withdraw the troops to barracks. In my language that is equal to capitulation and is giving in to force and blackmail, and it is no practical solution to the problems facing us in Northern Ireland.
A number of hon. Members spoke of the need to extend the powers to all acts of terrorism. The matter obviously requires the most careful consideration, although I accept that the need to get the

Bill through quickly makes it impossible to extend it at this stage. However, I hope that the Home Secretary will not close his ears to any pleas in that respect.
Another problem raised by a number of hon. Members was that of justice being too slow. Dealing with criminal cases in courts is a matter about which I know a little. First, particularly in a terrorist case where bombing has taken place, there is the difficulty of obtaining evidence. Confessions do not usually occur. There must be careful research. In the Winchester bombing case, after the London bombs, there was an enormous amount of detailed inquiries and many witnesses were seen by the police. In the end, the police managed to build up the case which led to conviction.
There is also the difficulty that when a case is finally presented upon committal it is usually extremely complicated and requires many further inquiries by the solicitors for the defendants. It is often they who properly ask for further delay before the case comes to court, so that they may make those inquiries.
A number of hon. Members have said that the Treason Act 1351 should be used. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) that the use of that Act would be inappropriate, for a number of reasons. One is that it is more than 600 years old, and nowadays there will be more and more juries with people on them aged 18, 19 or 20. When they hear the count read out, dealing with an Act of 600 years ago, and hear the wording in that Act, the case will perhaps start off on the wrong foot, when the intention of the prosecution, provided with evidence that tends to satisfy it that an offence has been committed, must be to see that the defendants are convicted if possible. I am no great historian, but I understand that the Act was designed to deal with rival claimants to the throne in those days or with a situation in which the country was at war with a foreign Power.
Problems will also arise under that old Act when allegiance to the Crown must be proved. Moreover, I doubt whether it is right to invite a jury to convict of an offence under an Act designed to cover entirely different circumstances because it happens to provide a penalty available under no other statute. This has been


the policy as I know it of the Law Officers' Department for a considerable time. The Attorney-General has asked me to express his agreement with what I have said about the Act. If the House should wish to provide the death penalty for acts of terrorism there is a better way, either by a new statute or by amending the existing Treason Act, though I can see the attraction of the use of the word "treason", because it seems to provide the necessary distinction between terrorist offences and ordinary cases of murder.
We are left, to use again the words of the Home Secretary—that a clear and present danger now confronts us. That danger is causing increasing anxiety to those members of the public who use the great cities or have relatives or friends in the areas which are now so vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It is that fear that the IRA seeks to use and increase for its own ends. The new—at any rate new to this country—method used in Chelsea last night is another clear example.
The balance of judgment may be difficult, but the escalation of deliberate terror tactics over the past few weeks, and especially the past few days, must justify the Government's decision now to ask the House for these powers.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): The nation as a whole is facing the gravest threat that it has faced since the end of the Second World War. The threat is twofold. The first part of it has been demonstrated throughout the debate but it comes to us with an immediacy and poignancy which even the Second World War did not have for those of us who lived through it. We see it demonstrated on our television screens in a way which was not possible at that time.
I remember last Thursday night, when those horrible events took place which prompted this Bill, watching the television screen to see the carnage which had been caused in Birmingham and being interrupted in viewing it by one of my constituents who telephoned me to say, "Mr. Lyon, please do something to stop this", All of us have felt that degree of urgency and emotion which came to

us through our telephones and mail and through personal contact with constituents in the week which has elapsed. It is partly in the wake of that that we introduce this Bill.
But there is another danger—a danger which is not so obvious but which nevertheless is just as real. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), in a distinguished speech delivered with all his usual classic precision, referred to Milton, who said:
Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live".
Would that Milton were here today.
We are in danger of forgetting the greatest contribution which England has made to civilisation. We cannot, under the threat of the bomber, draw back from that which has made us great and which we are in danger of losing. There is a sense in which English self-confidence over the last few years has been draining to the point when four people, most of them Americans, issue a statement in the form of a so-called report from the Hudson Institute which they themselves declare to be journalese which is given full front-page coverage by our newspapers as if it were a document which underwrote the decline in our national self-confidence. If we feel that lack of confidence now, at a moment when we are under grave threat from the bomber and the murderer, we will react in a way which will destroy all that has been good and great in that part of our character which we admire.
Therefore, the challenge to us is twofold. The second part of the challenge is just as important as fighting the IRA. Last week the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) asked whether we had the will to win. We do not have any doubt about it: we are determined to win. But we are determined to win in a way which will save for us that for which we are fighting. We shall not lose that in the fight to overcome the bomber.
Some hon. Members have characterised the situation as a war—that we should take the lives of those who engage in it because it is a war. When we got German prisoners of war within our grasp in the Second World War, did we shoot them or hang them? When did we torture them? Was it not this nation which, rightly, characterised the barbaric methods


of other nations in relation to their prisoners of war as being completely against all humanity? Is it suggested that we should take life in a way which can be justified only on grounds of vengeance? To take life as a means of deterrence—yes, that is well within the confines of the morality of a humane society, but that has to be proved, and so far the proof has been lacking.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Is the Minister saying that the Geneva Convention applies? When there is a state of war people are in uniform and certain rules of international war apply. But here we are subjected to war by the IRA, without a declaration of war, and the rules of war do not apply.

Mr. Lyon: If the bombers are at work in Northern Ireland and are seen, and if apprehension is attempted by the troops, the bombers are shot and may be killed. That, I accept, is analogous to war. But for the State when it has caught the culprits to take life not because that would deter others, not because it would stop the spread of bombing, would be to lose that which is vital in our society.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister say that society, in self-protection, is not entiled to impose a death penalty and to carry it out through the ordinary judicial channels?

Mr. Lyon: What I said was quite clear. We can take life as a society to deter the taking of life, but for us to take life as an act of vengeance is wholly wrong. If those who claim that we should take the life of the terrorist are to succeed in their claim, they must do so by showing that we shall deter the further taking of life by terrorists.
In looking at the legislation we have to see whether we have struck that balance correctly. In seeking to meet the challenge of the bomber, have we kept a proper regard for human liberty and for the civil rights of our people? In doing that the House would say, as has been said in most of the speeches today that there is a proper balance. There have been some questionings, and those questionings will be pursued in greater detail in Committee, but let me go through what the Bill does in the four grounds which are advanced.
The first is the banning of the IRA. The House knows that both this Government and the previous Government have been relucant to take that step. The Government took the step only because in the end it became clear that, although the police would find it more difficult with the IRA underground to make proper contacts and to see what was going on, the open panoply of IRA activities was such an affront to our people that it had to be banned for that purpose. We have done that so that a proper balance can be made between the detection of the terrorist and the kind of offence that is given by that open display. But make no question about it: it will in many ways be rather more than less difficult as a result of the banning to apprehend the terrorists.
Those of us who followed the account of the Price sisters' trial will recollect that much of the detection work that ultimately led to their apprehension at Heathrow had taken place before the events, because much of what the Price sisters did was in the open, but we reckon that the balance here has shifted markedly in favour of proscription.
The question that is raised by some hon. Members and by some amendments which we shall be discussing is whether that proscription should be extended to other terrorist groups. It was suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) that we should look at terrorism generally because, he said, we may in the future have to deal with other terrorist groups which are not connected with Northern Ireland. If that be so, the proper time to deal with the situation will be when the threat is made manifest. But at the moment the reality of the threat is the reality of what the IRA is doing here and now.
The evidence against other groups taking part in terrorist activities at the moment would not justify their proscription on present evidence. If it becomes available, there is power to add groups to the Bill, and we would not hesitate to do so.

Mr. George Cunningham: Are we to understand that it is the seriously considered view—leaving aside the effect on public morale—that in practice it is


better that, for the purpose of finding terrorists, the IRA should not be proscribed? If that is the case I shall not vote for it to be proscribed, because I can put it across to my constituents that it is better to have an ounce of practicality than all the propaganda and gesture in the world.

Mr. Lyon: The balance in the past has been a balance in terms of what the police found desirable in the proscription of the IRA in seeking out the terrorist. In the past the view by the police has been that it is better to keep the IRA in the open. The police now accept—this is the advice we have received—that this is the time to proscribe the IRA. Therefore. I do not think my hon. Friend's point would be valid.
The second part of the Bill relates to the question of exclusion orders. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had described this measure as Draconian, there were parts which were Draconian and other parts which did not carry the law very much further. The Draconian part of it undoubtedly is the question of the exclusion orders. Attention has been drawn to this point by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is a new and very grave development that we can now take power to exclude from one part of the country to another a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies resident in this country. It has to be to another part of the country because we could not exclude one of our citizens who had the right of abode here to some other country.
The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman is whether this brings into question the whole constitutional relationship of the Union, and clearly it does not. The issue about the relevance of the Union and the right of Northern Ireland to stay within that Union is guaranteed under the Northern Ireland Act. What is intended in this Bill is not to introduce even immigration control between the North of Ireland and the rest of the Union. It is to try to create security control at the ports and to contain within Northern Ireland the violence which has emanated from Northern Ireland into this country, so that it can be

contained within the legislation and the powers which lie within the administrative area of the Northern Irish Government.
What we are seeking to do is to exclude from this country certain persons who have been found to be engaged in terrorism. We shall use the powers sufficiently widely to exclude totally from the United Kingdom all those whom we can so exclude. It is those who were born in Northern Ireland, those who have a real connection with Northern Ireland and, therefore, those who could be sent back to Northern Ireland who will make up the only group who would be the subject of these powers. The object of the exercise is simply to try to contain the violence in Northern Ireland in that way.
We do not minimise the need to fight that violence by all the means at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and that fight will continue. But where we can, we hope to contain it.

Mr. Kilfedder: Surely what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he wishes to contain such people in Northern Ireland, and what the Government are proposing to do is to expel people who have lived in England back to Northern Ireland again, even though the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland knows that he is embarrassed by the difficulty of keeping people in the Maze Prison who have been detained. The people sent back to Northern Ireland will be those engaged in terrorism, and, therefore, they should be detained. Why should they not be detained in England, where it will be possible to make their detention more secure?

Mr. Lyon: If the evidence is available for the conviction of an offence within Great Britain, such a person will be charged and, subject to the decision of the jury, convicted in this country and dealt with by the normal processes of the law.
In relation to exclusion orders, we are dealing with the power to proceed against someone against whom we may have information of a sensitive kind which could not be produced before a court and which might justify us in an order for exclusion. That is the only limited class of case where we would want to use the power.
The argument that there would be a dumping ground for Northern Ireland is belied by the power which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has in his own capacity, which is not available to this country. The argument could be raised that we ought to take that kind of power. But if we were to do so in this country at the present time it would mean a marked departure from the traditional guarantees in our English common law which we would not feel was justified by the present threat.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. If that is so, surely it should be true reciprocally that if there were people brought up in this country who went to Northern Ireland and carried out these acts, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could expel them or exclude them from Northern Ireland so that they might be dealt with in this country.

Mr. Lyon: The position about this matter is raised in an amendment which will be dealt with in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have the power under this Bill to exclude people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have engaged in acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and he can exclude them to the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Powell: I understand the Minister to be arguing that there is nothing in these provisions that contradicts the essential unity of the United Kingdom. However, I thought that I heard him say that the purpose of these provisions, so far as they concern citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is that where they are under suspicion or the like and, therefore, cannot be dealt with conveniently by the general law, they are to be sent to that part of the kingdom where there happen to be special ways of dealing with them not available in the rest of the realm. That is what I thought be said. If so, does he regard that as evidence of the unity of the realm?

Mr. Lyon: What is being argued is that those who have a substantial connection with Northern Ireland and have engaged in terrorist activities over here should be the subject of an exclusion order from Great Britain. That is all. If they were citizens of the Republic of

Ireland they would be excluded to Ireland. If they came from anywhere else, the exclusion order could be to that other place. Northern Ireland is not being chosen because it has the powers to which I have referred. Even if people are sent there, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has power to deal with them in those circumstances. Therefore, it is not that we are taking people from Great Britain and dumping them in Northen Ireland where they would be a greater threat.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is rapidly getting himself tangled up in something of a quagmire. Will he state carefully whether it is his learned opinion that a person picked up here and sent to Northern Ireland will be detained by my right hon. Friend? Is he saying that my right hon. Friend has the power to detain people in Northern Ireland for offences committed in this country? I do not think that he has.

Mr. Lyon: The position, as I understand it, is that when in Northern Ireland a person who is capable, and may be suspected, of committing acts of terrorism can be considered within the preventive powers of my right hon. Friend. In exercising those powers he must take into account the threat of those persons in Northern Ireland, not the threat that they were in Great Britain. In doing that he has the capacity, within the Northern Ireland legislation, to take such action as he deems right.
Other parts of the Bill relate to detention by a constable without warrant and allow detention for 48 hours or for seven days if the Secretary of State agrees. The powers are wider than the powers of arrest contained in the normal English statute, but only to a very limited extent. They apply for only two days and the extension applies only when the Secretary of State so authorises, which would be a rare occurrence.
Another part of the Bill relates to control at the ports.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lyon: No. I have given way a great deal. I am just about to wind up.
What I was about to turn to was the final power that relates to control at


the ports. I indicated at the beginning that that control relates not so much to immigration as to the security that would be exercised, mainly by the police, and only as a standby by immigration officers. Therefore, it is not the case that that part of the powers that are taken in the Bill is designed in any way to mark a division between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is merely a method of extending the power of the police to check the passage of bombers and terrorists across the sea between the two islands, and I am sure the House will agree it is a limited power.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) wanted to know whether there would be a power to command captains of ships and aeroplanes to take the people back to the place from which they came. That power is contained both in the reference in Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act and in the order that will be laid as soon as the Bill is passed.
Questions were asked about the police and police strengths. The trend over the past six months has been a small but satisfactory increase in the size of the police force. This has been due to a maintenance of the trend towards recruiting and a slowing down of the wastage that had been felt in the service hitherto.
The pay award that was authorised to operate from 1st September was a substantial one, and it indicates our determination to increase the strength of the police force in a way that will enable us more effectively to carry out the task of preventing crime. In particular, the London weighting allowance provided a marked incentive for people to join the Metropolitan force.
At the end of December 1973 the Special Constabulary had 25,000 special constables, including 2,000 women. There was a substantial increase last year as a result of recruiting advertisements, and that campaign has been carried further this year with notable success. We are doing all that we can to increase the size of the police force to carry out the work that was intended.
I have not the opportunity to deal with all the points that were raised during the debate, but I think it is clear from the arguments that have been put forward in support of the Bill that the balance to which I referred at the beginning is one which we have sought to maintain in our approach to the legislation, and I hope the House will agree that we have suceeded in maintaining it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. JOSEPH HARPER and Mr. WALTER JOHNSON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Carriage of Goods by Road and the Motion relating to Pre-Packed Products may each be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Coleman.]

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Immediately considered in Committee.

[MR. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Clause 1

PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. For the convenience of the Committee, I beg to move,
That the schedules relating to the respective parts of the Bill be taken immediately after the respective parts rather than consideration being deferred to the end.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that it cannot be done. I call the hon. Member to move the first amendment.

Mr. Stainton: Then I will not seek at this moment to argue with you, Mr. Thomas. Instead, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
I am not a lawyer, and perhaps that is some advantage in these proceedings in so far as I am entitled to approach this whole matter through the eyes of the layman and the average constituent, the man in the street. I am forced to ask why the provision is for three persons rather than two. From what I have heard in general gossip, my guess would be that the figure three derives from the law of unlawful assembly which relates to gatherings of three or more people who, with certain common purposes, arrange to commit a crime leading to violence—[Interruption.]—or indulge or behave in certain other ways. However, I should like—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. Would hon. Members beyond the Bar remember that we are trying to conduct our business in an orderly way?

Mr. Stainton: I am obliged, Mr. Thomas.
My object is to have that point clarified, as I should like clarified what strikes me as an ambiguity. Is the person referred

to in the first line of the clause one of the three? This is utterly ambiguous in this context. Were he to be one of the three, one could understand the interpretation of the "three" in terms of what I understand is the general law on unlawful assembly, but that does not necessarily follow from my reading of the Bill as drafted. I therefore press the amendment and hope for a reasoned reply from the Home Secretary.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I hope that we can dispose of the amendment reasonably quickly. I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) for clarification, but it would be very difficult to justify changing "three" to "two" as he has suggested.
The paragraph is concerned primarily with gatherings of people for a common purpose to support a proscribed organisation. If a meeting of two people were to be so described, it could nominally—no doubt it would not lead to a conviction, but we want sensible laws—be an offence to speak to a member of the IRA. If a person supports the IRA in his terrorist activities he could be dealt with under subsection (1)(b) under the provisions of the Bill or under the general criminal law. I am sure that there would not be any desire to have a chance meeting with a member of the IRA, in the most theoretical sense, made a criminal offence.
I know that the hon. Gentleman's intentions are entirely friendly and helpful, but I hope that he will now think that "two" is sensible.

Mr. Stainton: I should like to pursue the question of ambiguity. Is the subject of the clause—"any person" in line 7—one of the three? I follow the logic. If he is one of the three, one can acknowledge that there can be an encounter of the type the right hon. Gentleman has described if there are two other persons. If he is not one of the three, this is a larger multiple.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the three.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Home Secretary may believe it—we do not doubt his good faith—but has he taken legal advice? Is there a Law Officer about? I want to know what this means


legally, not what the Home Secretary believes. Could a Law Officer intervene on this point of substance?

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will intervene at any stages where it is necessary. Some practices are quite customary when a Bill is going slowly, but I do not believe that it is the desire of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge, who moved this perfectly reasonable amendment, that the Bill should go slowly at this stage. I believe that it is the general view of the Committee that three is a reasonable number. The interpretation of any Act is a matter not for me, nor for the House of Commons, nor for my right hon. and learned Friend. The person referred to here is one of the people concerned.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We cannot let the Home Secretary get away with that. He is offering the House a Bill for whose drafting he is responsible. It is no good his saying that we must not ask him what it means. He has a Law Officer sitting on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge and Sudbury (Mr. Stainton) asked a perfectly reasonable question. This is not prolonging the proceedings. Will the Law Officer say whether the three includes the "any person" or does not? That is the question. We want to know the answer.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The view that I take is exactly the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I do not want to detain the Committee on this point, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that there is an ambiguity here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) pointed out. The words are
arranges or assists in the arrangement or management of … any meeting of three or more persons".
From the point of view of arrangement, clearly the person referred to in the first line of the clause can be one of the three. But when we come to the next matter of addressing it, obviously he cannot be because he would not normally be addressing himself, so there is a contradiction.

Mr. Stainton: If it will meet the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'(d) arranges a broadcast, newspaper article or other publicity knowing that the purpose or consequence might reasonably be expected to support, sustain or to further the activities of a proscribed organisation or a person belonging or professing to belong to a proscribed organisation'.

The Chairman: As well we shall also discuss new Clause 4—Appearance on radio or television of members of proscribed organisations.
I am quite agreeable to there being separate Divisions if necessary.

Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. It is to prevent members of proscribed organisations using the media of the Press, television and radio, and also to prevent persons engaged in the media from giving them opportunities to broadcast.
Perhaps I should make clear that in my opinion the amendment would probably not exclude a factual news interview, but it would exclude certain other types of programme to which I hope to refer in a few moments.
We all have very much in mind the recent appearance on London Weekend Television of the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, David O'Connell. I did not see the programme but I have read a full transcript of the interview that was broadcast. Although I speak in part as someone who was formerly employed in television news for a number of years before being elected to this House, I was appalled by the quality of the interview. I have no option but to read part of it to the House for the benefit of those who, like myself, did not see it.
I read an extract from the end of the first part of the interview when Mr. O'Connell is speaking:
For five years the British Government has had its forces waging a campaign of terror not just on the IRA, but on the people of Ireland. For five years Kitson's theory of leaning on the people, of squeezing the people has been done in the North of Ireland. What have we got from the British public, what have we got from


the British people? Total indifference. They have washed their hands. We said last week in a statement"—
and I draw the House's attention to these words—
that the British Government and the British people must realise that because of the terrible war in Ireland they will suffer the consequences.
The interviewer then asked
Will you escalate that campaign?
Mr. O'Connell said "We will". The interviewer, Mary Holland, then asked
how will you escalate it? Would you take in political assassinations for example?
Mr. O'Connell replied
We have clearly stated—military, judicial, political and economic targets are within our brief at this point of time.
He then went on to state his views and his policy and the policy of his organisation concerning the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland.
10.15 p.m.
I am not saying that this interview was deliberately conceived to give a particular impression. However, I am bound to say that I would feel safer in making that assertion if the Home Secretary had seen fit—as I still hope he will—to conduct an inquiry into this interview and discover how it arose. I have very much in mind the effect of that interview on the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who described it on 25th November. He asked the Home Secretary:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however strong the objections may be to imposing censorship upon television, that man's voice"—
Mr. O'Connell's—
as it came out on television indirectly led to the murder of 19 people in Birmingham? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that every effort should be made to prevent another such broadcast?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 45.]
The hon. Member for Belfast, West knows a great deal about these matters, and if he felt that the effect of that interview was as he described it, I am prepared to assume that it had a similar effect on others with an interest in what Mr. O'Connell said.

Sir John Eden: Will my hon. Friend have very much in mind the fact that the interviewer's sympathies in this matter have never been concealed and are well known?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that that remark requires any further comment. I accept what my right hon. Friend has said. There is no question but that the IBA saw that interview in advance of its transmission. So the responsibility is not purely that of London Weekend Television or of the officers of the IBA.
I understand that subsequent to the transmission the whole Independent Broadcasting Authority saw the interview and, as I understand it, approved the action of its officers. Presumably the authority considered that section of the Television Act 1964 which requires the authority to satisfy itself that:
so far as possible, the programme broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say—
(a) that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling".
Many of us would feel that to ask Mr. O'Connell whether he was prepared to escalate his activities to include assasina-tions could be construed as an attempt to
encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder".
The IBA has decided to review the matter in the light of this measure. But it must be made absolutely clear to it what our wishes as a House are. That is the purpose of this amendment, and it may well be the purpose of new Clause 4.
That clause may have a weakness in that ignorance is an exoneration within its terms. The Press is included in the amendment. There are differences between the Press, radio and television. With the IBA and the BBC we are dealing with bodies set up by Acts of Parliment and governed by such Acts. I should argue that they have a special responsibility to the House. I do not think that Press interviews have the same impact as television and radio interviews, neither do they occupy as much space in terms of words as television programmes. There are reams of the David O'Connell interview, far more than would ever be printed in a newspaper article.
Further, the possibility of editorial control at various stages in a newspaper is probably stronger than it is on television.


Therefore, it may have been a mistake to have included the Press in the amendment, and I am prepared to exclude it if we receive an assurance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will consult the editors and that they will impose a self-denying ordinance.
I am bound to warn the right hon. Gentleman that I am under strong pressure to divide the Committee on the amendment. I am sure that my hon. Friends and I will do so unless we have the strongest assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the message of the House is that the broadcasting authorities should take full note of what has been said this evening.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) in what I think was an admirable speech. I take issue with him slightly in as much as I hope he will not agree to an alteration to exclude the Press. I do not think that the media can be divided absolutely. It is essential that we do not abdicate our responsibilities. We should give some guidance to the media. Over the past few horrific years there has been nothing that has been more nauseating or more offensive to the British people than the sight and sound from time to time of blackguards, villians and murderers appearing on our television screens, or being given radio interviews.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department having brought the Bill to the House and it having been given its Second Reading—I hope that the remaining stages will be dealt with expeditiously—it would be much the weaker if it did not include a provision along the lines of the amendment. I would not be inclined to argue about the wording of an amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has much more expert advice than I am able to give him. I urge him most earnestly to incorporate something along the lines of the amendment in the Bill. If he does not do so, it will be much the poorer and much less effective. I think that the British people would expect it to be included.

Mr. John Stanley: I shall address my remarks to new Clause 4. At the outset I shall make it clear what it is and what it is not intended to do.
First, it does not restrict the freedom of the Press in any way. The application of the clause is solely to radio and television. Second, it does not restrict in any way the legitimate and necessary function of the reporting of news and comment on radio and television by broadcasting staff, by television staff or by any other individual invited to go on radio or television with the exception of members of proscribed organisations.
In no way do we seek to trammel the freedom of the media to engage in news comment and reporting. New Clause 4 would not even make it an offence for members of proscribed organisations simply to be seen visually on television as opposed to being interviewed. This is because we recognise, after careful consideration, that there may be circumstances in which it is in the public interest that members of proscribed organisations appear on television. For example, if a news cameraman saw an act of terrorism being perpetrated, it might well be in the public interest that he film it and that the film be shown on television. Equally, we recognise that it is important to maintain the ability of the security forces to put pictures on television of those who are members of proscribed organisations and may be sought by the security forces.
New Clause 4 is strictly limited in scope, but we believe that it nevertheless tries to achieve a necessary objective. The sole purpose is to make it an offence for a person knowingly and deliberately to give television or radio facilities, either by way of interview or by recording, to members of organisations which are proscribed under the Bill. We believe that that would hardly seem to be an unreasonable objective in the light of the gross outrages which have occurred and of others which may well occur.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) suggested on Second Reading that the effect of New Clause 4 might be achieved not by legislation but by the adoption of a self-denying ordinance by editors and producers of the television and radio services. If the Home Secretary could obtain an assurance from editors and producers that a self-denying ordinance would be adopted, that would be greatly welcomed by me and also, I am sure, by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Leeds, North-East and other hon. Members.
But I have serious doubts about such a course. It seems to me that in a matter as fundamental as the freedom of the media it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide what should be permitted and what should not be. It does not seem to me to be right that the responsibility should be put on the editors and producers of television and radio programmes.
I recognise, however, that new Clause 4 represents a small but important encroachment on the freedom of the media. Hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly and jealously guard the freedom of the media. That is wholly common to us all. We recognise that the freedom of the media is the true litmus paper of whether we have a genuine democracy or a charade. But there are at least three well-founded justifications for contemplating this small and very limited encroachment on the freedom of the media in these exceptional circumstances.
First, new Clause 4 would deprive members of proscribed organisations of the use of what is by far the most potent propaganda platform available to them through which they can communicate most quickly to the greatest number of people. No hon. Member will deny the potency of television and, to a lesser extent, of radio. Few of us would spurn to use them. It is indefensible to give to people who are the enemies of our country and are daily inflicting death and maiming on our citizens this means of possibly inciting and inflaming opinion, a means which can reach into millions of homes.
On Monday the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) referred to his own view of the indirect contribution made by O'Connell's performance on television to the recent outrages in Birmingham. In his speech earlier today the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) gave a different view. But if the ability of members of proscribed organisations to appear on television or to use the radio, proves likely in any way to increase the risk of loss of life and suffering, that is sufficient justification for voting for the new clause.
10.30 p.m.
The second justification is that the new clause is wholly consistent with the purpose of the Bill. If it, or something like it, is omitted, there will be a glaring inconsistency between the intention of the Bill and its likely practical effect.
In his statement on Monday, the Home Secretary described the powers to be taken as Draconian. Not many of us would doubt that they are. It would appear that some Labour Members were contemplating voting against Second Reading for that very reason. They are far-reaching powers—powers of summary arrest and detention, powers to control movement and new powers of search. They are indeed Draconian.
All these powers are being directed against the IRA and other proscribed organisations. It is grossly inconsistent if on the one hand we take these Draconian powers and on the other hand leave it entirely open to members of those proscribed organisations to appear subsequently on radio and television. If that happens, the people of this country will regard it as incomprehensible, against the background of the legislation we are passing tonight. They will also regard it as highly reprehensible.
The final justification of the new clause is that if we are to retain the confidence of ordinary citizens it is essential that we grapple seriously with a ruthless and totally amoral enemy. The ordinary man in the street is, generally speaking, incensed and fearful over what has happened over some years in Ulster. He is incensed and fearful about what he sees as the likely, or possible, extension of that to the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the factors which have possibly incensed him more than anything else over the past few months and couple of years in particular is the appearance on radio and television of those who are clearly engaged in waging terrorism against the people of this country.
If people have been incensed about the appearance of members of the IRA and terrorist organisations on the television up to now, we can be in no doubt that they will be doubly incensed if such appearances continue after those organisations have been proscribed. The ordinary man in the street is looking to us tonight in the hope that he can obtain


confidence that we are taking every reasonable and sensible precaution to fight against this outburst of terrorism and its spread from Ulster into other parts of the United Kingdom.
What will be the grounds for confidence amongst ordinary men and women if, after the passing of this legislation, we see on the television screens next week, next month or next year members of the very organisations which have been proscribed? We cannot expect the confidence of our constituents if we pass these Draconian measures against members of proscribed organisations and at the same time allow them to have a relatively free rein on the media.
It is essential that we deny the gratuitous use of the television and radio facilities to members of the various organisations proscribed by the Bill. If we do, we shall show the British people that we are in earnest against terrorism. If we do not, we shall not convince anyone for long that we are in earnest.

The Attorney-General: It may be for the convenience of the Committee, particularly after the persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), if I indicate the Government's view on this matter, without wishing to cut short the debate.
Everyone in the Committee would take the view that one thing which we do not wish to see provided is a platform for people who are within the class of terrorist that the Bill deals with. We would regard that as just as offensive as we regarded the broadcasts of Joyce from Germany during the early part of the war. However, there is force in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) namely, that it might be as well in certain circumstances to enable the British public to know, even by seeing or hearing, the sort of people they are up against. We have to try to balance those two things and to balance the great desirability of avoiding unnecessary censorship by criminal sanctions in the light of the situation relating to terrorists in this country today.
There is a possibility of a criminal offence under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the Clause, but I do not want to make much of that because it is

unlikely that it would be used for the kind of censorship which is suggested in the amendment or in the new clauses. The question is: are we to enforce by criminal sanction the kind of good taste—one might use stronger expressions than that—which has been referred to, or should we leave the matter to the good sense particularly of the broadcasting organisations? The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has made it clear that for him the broadcasting and television authorities have the most influence. I think that we would all agree with that. There may be occasions when showing these people on the screen may not be harmful; it may even be of advantage. That is a dilemma which the Committee must consider when deciding what to do about this matter.
I appreciate the force of the views which have been expressed and the Committee's feeling that to provide a platform for these people would be repugnant not only to the Committee but to the public.

Mr. Carol Mather: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the fact that this has been put to the broadcasting and television authorities on many occasions but there has been little sign that they have taken the warnings seriously? In fact, no attempt has been made to take account of the opinion of the public or of many Members.

The Attorney-General: I was coming to the position of the broadcasting authorities.
It is right that the Committee should have in mind the position under the statute which governs the IBA and the similar words of the charter which governs the BBC. There is a statutory duty on the IBA to satisfy itself that so far as possible nothing is included in a programme which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime, lead to disorder or be offensive to public feeling. That is a statutory duty, and the same duty applies to the BBC.
I am well aware that there are hon. Members on either side of the Committee who may take the view that one authority or another has failed in that duty, but both the BBC and the ITA have publicly stated, following the statement made by


my right hon. Friend on Monday, that they will have to take fresh account of the situation now that the IRA is to be proscribed. In practice, that means that they will consider the provisions of the Bill in consultation with their governing bodies. I have no doubt that they will take into account the views which have been forcefully expressed in Committee tonight, which are not confined to one side of the Committee. They will be fully responsive to the new situation in discharging their existing statutory and other duties for the conduct of programmes. Whatever the position may have been in the past, we have a new situation altogether with the passing of this legislation into law which both authorities will have to take into account, and have said publicly that they will take into account.
I hope that the Committee will take the view that those public statements by responsible people provide a firm basis for confidence that their response will be in accord with the objective of the amendment and the new Clause, without the necessity for additional legislation or for a criminal sanction which would be liable to hit many people and which I am sure that the Committee would not wish to impose as a form of censorship unless it were absolutely necessary.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not reassured me very much. Most of the interviews were filmed or recorded in Dublin, where the IRA is already proscribed, so I do not see that proscription makes much difference. I wish that I had a little more confidence in the assurances that have been given, but I have not, and, therefore, I feel that we should be abdicating our responsibility if we did not do something.

The Attorney-General: Interviews may be recorded in Dublin or anywhere else, but we are concerned with what is shown on the screen and what is heard on the radio from a station in this country. That is where the duty laid down by statute and by charter operates.
The hon. Gentleman is not saying that he is dissatisfied with my undertaking, because I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of those authorities. I am informing the Committee that the broadcasting authorities have publicly stated

—and one would not expect that public statement not to be honoured—that they will take fresh account of the new situation created by the passage of this legislation into law. If that is honoured, surely the Committee will agree that it is a much better way of dealing with these matters than a form of censorship enforced by the criminal law [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] That would be starting on a path which hon. Gentlemen opposite would surely regard as perilous. Even in the present situation, I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would not think it right to impose that form of censorship on those bodies. That was the view taken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in his very fair remarks. He said that the Home Secretary should discuss these matters with newspaper editors and broadcasting authorities. That is already the position, because the broadcasting authorities have made their statement.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined the duty of the IBA and the BBC under their charters as they now exist. What sanctions are there for breaches of those duties—breaches such as those which appear to the Committee to have been committed?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do the position in regard to broadcasting authorities. Parliament wishes them to have a high degree of independence. Parliament has created those organisations on the basis that they should have a high degree of independence because we do not wish to impose a censorship on them. But we expect them to respond in a way which recognises the public interest. Following the passage of this Bill into law, unless and until they show that they do not recognise that—and I think it is a highly unlikely state of affairs—it is not, in my view, either right or necessary for the House to impose this censorship upon them by criminal sanctions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Attorney-General aware that we in Northern Ireland heard these things from the media when the IRA was given prominence by both media, but it made


no difference? When that organisation was proscribed, we still had these things on our screens. Will not the same thing happen in this country? Will not the media here follow the example set by their counterparts in Ulster and continue as they have done hitherto?

The Attorney-General: I can only tell the Committee what the authorities said publicly. The view about the interview in question was not unanimous, whatever view may be held about it by hon. Members in this House.
On 19th November the Belfast Telegraph commented on the interview and concluded that, on balance and despite the public feeling about it, it was right for the interview to be shown. There must invariably be differences of opinion about matters of this kind which involve censorship. I am sure that is why the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East expressed his view about this in a way which would not have led to censorship and criminal sanctions, so that a reasonable flexibility could be permitted to the authorities, and, provided that they do as they have said, they will take fully into account what clearly is the view of this House.
It is clearly the view of this House that a platform should not be provided for those who will make remarks which are offensive to the people of this country. There is no reason to doubt that that assurance will be fulfilled, and I urge the Committee——

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Attorney-General: No. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech if he wishes.

Mr. Emery: We are in Committee.

The Attorney-General: Certainly, but I have given way to a number of hon. Members already, and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am sure that the Committee wants me to do that, because we have a great deal more to debate.

Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer one direct

question? We all want to help him, and in many ways we are trying to. That is why I wish to put to him this very fair question. The television authorities have the responsibility at this moment to take into account those specific duties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted to us. Many right hon. and hon. Members think that the projection of that programme was massively offensive to public decency.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Censorship.

Mr. Emery: What the Attorney-General has said is that the television authorities say that they will take fully into account both the statement of the Home Secretary and this Bill. But what is the position if, having taken them fully into account, just as they did their obligations under the Television Act, they continue to transmit such programmes because they believe that they have to give a balanced viewpoint or because they believe that they must not give way to suggestions of censorship—the word which we heard just now from a Government supporter? What can the Attorney-General do about the continued projection of that sort of programme?

The Attorney-General: They have said that they will take fresh account of the new situation which will arise as a result of this legislation being passed into law. I do not want to comment on the propriety of any specific programme which was produced in circumstances which were quite different from the position in the future, because legislation of this kind, with proscription of the IRA, was not then on the statute book, as it will be when we deal with these matters in future.
I appreciate entirely the strong views of many right hon. and hon. Members about this kind of programme being put before the British public. I appreciate also the strong views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we should not have any more censorship than is absolutely essential. It is a difficult balance. On balance, however, I believe, and I hope that the Committee will accept, that it is right to leave the matter to the undertakings which have been given in the expectation that they will be honoured in the future, having been given by responsible people.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Perhaps I might intervene briefly in order to give the Attorney-General a chance to seek to speak again having listened to what the Opposition have to say, because I do not think that the Committee will accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that fresh account will be taken of the new situation as a particularly satisfactory reply to our arguments.
We shall want a firm assurance on at least three points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has at no stage made clear the Government's view on the position now or after the Bill becomes law. That is a fair point to make.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) asked for further and immediate discussions between the Home Office and the broadcasting organisations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not satisfied us on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) asked what sanctions there were if the broadcasting organisations did not take the fresh account of the situation that the Attorney-General wants them to take. What sanctions are available? If there are no sanctions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be quite honest and straightforward about the situation and tell the Committee that there are no sanctions.
If we are to proscribe the IRA, if we are to make it an offence to belong to that organisation or to show support for it, it would be an absurdity to allow its members to appear in interviews on television. That is how the public will regard the matter.
Clearly, as has been made absolutely clear, there are difficulties in definition. We do not want to set up a censoring body for news reporting, but we want to prevent propaganda from the IRA being broadcast on the media. That intention is expressed perfectly well in the proposed new clause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East made it clear that he would prefer a course whereby the Home Secretary entered into immediate talks with the heads of the broadcasting organi-

sations on the position that will be created when the Bill becomes law. We would like an answer on that point. We would prefer the broadcasting organisations to take their own action, but we would want that action to be certain.
Surely the position has now changed. Members of the IRA will now be members of a proscribed criminal organisation. We no more expect to see them being interviewed on television than murderers who are on the run or bank robbers who are in hiding.
I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene further and try to assure us on the points that have been made.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I oppose the amendment and the new clause on the ground that censorship through the criminal law is both fundamentally wrong and dangerous. I am equally worried about censorship through the winks and nods of the British establishment. If there is to be censorship, I think it would be better for it to be as a result of the deliberate act of Parliament. At least we would then know who the censors were. I will make my position unequivocally clear. I abhor this amendment.
We may turn the Bill into an Act tonight, but the IRA will not go away. There will come a time when the Government will have to negotiate with these barbarous thugs and will have to take a view about their outlook, mentality and future intentions. Therefore, there may come a time when the public will have the right to take a similar view and to form their own opinion. It is for that reason that I oppose the amendment.
We may have some heated exchanges tonight, or they may be quiet, but I hope that we shall not conduct this Committee stage in bad taste. I fear that we started off in bad taste. I believe that in moving the amendment the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) was quoting somebody when he said that a certain television interview may have led to or encouraged the planting of the bomb in Birmingham which cost the lives of 19 people. Another hon. Gentleman then stood up and said "We know where the sympathies of that interviewer lie", to which the first hon. Gentleman replied, "Yes, I need not elaborate on that." I


choose my words carefully when I say that I hope hon. Members will not hide their disgusting innuendoes behind the privilege afforded by the House. The interviewer is a young and courageous individual, and it is wrong of hon. Gentlemen to use the shield of privilege to make libellous remarks.

11.0 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an old and respected forensic opponent of mine, and I know how much he relishes having a really weak case to deploy as a challenge to his forensic ingenuity, and certainly he could not have had a better challenge than he had this evening. He could scarcely have had a weaker case, and I think it is fair to say that his embarrassment came through in the way in which he tried to deploy it.
It is always difficult for Ministers, and particularly for Ministers who are lawyers, to seek to sustain the proposition that things that would properly, normally and conventially be enshrined in the law of the land in accordance with our ordinary procedures should for some nebulous, unsatisfactory reason be relegated to the sphere of unenforceable undertakings. That is what the Attorney-General was suggesting, and it was even weaker perhaps than normal because of the background against which the suggestion comes, because those whose unenforceable undertakings are to take the place of the statute law are those who are already in breach of their statutory duty in regard to conduct in the very context with which we are concerned here.

The Attorney-General: I should never suggest that Front Benches have all the wisdom, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that that was precisely what his right hon. Friend was advising the House on Second Reading.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: As I understand it, there is no issue but that they are in breach of statutory duty. It has been asked what sanctions there would be to enforce the compliance of what I have called these unenforceable undertakings. The answer is that there are no real sanctions that could make them enforceable at all, and that is part of the case for putting them into the framework of the statute law.
What is argued against that proposition is that this would be a form of censorship. But that again is not an accurate description. There is not a completely unlimited right in anybody, be he the media or an individual, to publish whatever he wishes without any constraints at all. There are the well known constraints—sedition, libel, blasphemy, and so on. If this applies, surely it follows that there must not be a publication the consequence of which is to sustain an illegal organisation pursuing criminal and terrorist activities. The question of censorship does not comes in.
Nor is it right to suggest, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, that there might be some merit in allowing the programme to go forward so that they could be seen for the sort of people they are. The prosecution will succeed here only if the purpose or consequence of the broadcast might reasonably be expected to support, sustain or further the activities of the proscribed organisation. If my hon. Friend's amendment is accepted, for the prosecution to succeed it has to establish knowledge of that consequence. I agree that that does not follow completely from the new clause, which reads rather differently and makes it an offence to interview a member of a proscribed organisation, irrespective, apparently, of the subject matter. For that reason, the amendment is to be preferred. If I had had the drafting of this matter I should have included elements of both. We cannot do that at this stage, because we are taking the whole of these stages together. I would, therefore, recommend the right hon. Gentleman, for these reasons, to accept the amendment.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North) rose——

Mr. Mather: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's right hon. and learned Friend sat down a long time ago.

Mr. Whitehead: With respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), this is a question of censorship. The media are the subject of dispute in this debate because of the interview on London Weekend Television. We should none


of us forget in moments of heat and passion that the mass media are a buttress of our liberties, protecting the liberty of those who regard what they see as subversive as well as of those who regard them as reinforcing the status quo. The media are always under attack whenever liberty is under attack. That is as true in Prague or Paris as it is in Belfast. The media are the target in that sort of situation, and they are the target of the forces which we hope to combat with the Bill.
Not all hon. Members have actually seen or read the transcript of the interview with David O'Connell. It was not a party political broadcast for the IRA. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) that the slurs on the integrity of the interviewer, Miss Mary Holland, were improper and do not properly reflect on her professional standing and the way in which she conducted the interview.
It may be of interest to read one quotation from that interview, in which O'Connell said:
Furthermore we reject outright this charge that we shoot people because they are Protestants. If I may take a case which resulted in a great deal of criticism on ourselves, namely the execution of two Judges. One of those was a Catholic. It was immaterial to us what religion the man practised.
Miss Holland then asked:
These two men to whom you refer, Judge Conaghan and Martin McBirney, were both in fact known for their rather liberal attitudes towards political offenders. Now, to people in the north it just seems that when you start shooting people like that that there is no defence against anything, that, that their whole system of law is going to break down. I mean how can you justify that?
He replied:
It's a clear cut case. They were part and parcel of the corrupt British system in the north." [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) should learn that he cannot intervene when he is outside the Chamber.

Mr. Whitehead: These views are detestable——

Mr. Michael Morris: Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South) rose——

Mr. Whitehead: The Committee must get on and I must get on. The hon.

Member has only just come in. He must listen to what I have to say.
These views that I have quoted are detestable to all of us. They are the views of someone who is demented in any political sense that we should understand. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) said on Second Reading, it is not a bad thing that they should be expressed. When the London Weekend people put that interview on the air before the Birmingham bombings, I believe they acted in good faith and felt that a wider public should see what manner of man O'Connell was.
I do not know the view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I should imagine that those views expressed by O'Connell in that interview, when seen in the Province, must have disgusted everyone, Catholic and Protestant alike, and that is not wholly a net loss to freedom.

Mr. George Cunningham: But would my hon. Friend regard it quite so tolerantly if the same kind of broadcast were made in the "Open Door" programme, in which television time is handed over to an outside programme or group to construct a programme more or less as it wishes? The BBC and ITV programmes would be free to do that at the moment, if they wanted to, as I understand it.

Mr. Whitehead: Yes, they would be free to do that. I think that they would be wrong to do so. They have not done so. The short answer to my hon. Friend is "No". I would not offer to an organisation which does not respect any of our liberties the freedom of the air to make propaganda of that kind.
Broadcasting in this country operates by a system of transferred legitimacy. It is a fairly subtle and sophisticated system. The powers are already there to control it. They rest, and have rested recently, with the Home Secretary himself. As well as the statutory powers in the BBC Licence and Agreement and those relating to the IBA, the Home Secretary has an implicit power.
There are bound to be occasions when the system goes wrong. The explicit power of Governments over broadcasting


also gives rise to mistakes and misunderstandings where there is an explicit power in the statutes. Three years ago, in the Irish Republic, on Telefis Eirean in somewhat similar ciumstances an interview was given by Sean MacStiofain, the then chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. It was held by the then Minister in the Fianna Fail Government—Mr. Collins—to be in contravention of Section 31 of the 1960 Act relating to broadcasting in the Irish Republic. As a result of that, between teatime and dinnertime he sacked the entire board of the Telefis Eirean. That can be one result of an explicit power. It does not seem to have improved broadcasting or to have controlled terrorism there. Indeed, many of the terrorists go as free today in the Republic of Ireland as they did.
I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). The amendment would put a power of censorship in the hands of the House of Commons. It could even prevent a discussion from taking place on television on whether an organisation should be banned under Clause 1. The Home Secretary may have to work through this power in future. It may be that other organisations will be banned. It may be that that is a very legitimate area of public concern and debate. It should be possible to have that as widely debated as possible on the predominant mass media of the day.
I would not wish to see this power taken from the broadcasting organisations and simply transferred to the House of Commons, where at present passions are running high. There is already self-censorship, or reference up, in broadcasting. This is a system which has been instituted in recent years and which has been applied by the BBC in the case of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will remember that for some years the broadcasting media ignored Northern Ireland affairs. There was a system of reference up then which said that we should not look at affairs in the Province because affairs there were best left alone. That did not do us any good at that time.
I believe that the broadcasting organisations will have taken this debate to heart, particularly the remarks made

in very strong terms about censorship by a number of hon. Members. It may well be that with hindsight, which includes the bombings in Birmingham last week, the O'Connell broadcast was, in the circumstances, an error of judgment. That it was made in good faith I have no doubt.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Member cannot speak about hindsight in that sense. British soldiers have been killed in Ulster for the past five years. It is still just as offensive on those grounds for a broadcast of this type to be made. It is not a question of hindsight over Birmingham.

Mr. Whitehead: Anything which in any sense belittles the activities of British Service men and the security authorities in Northern Ireland will give offence to many people in this country. I have never heard the argument advanced—and I hope that it never will be—that something shall not be shown because it gives offence to certain sections of opinion here. In the nature of broadcasting in a free society, occasionally an unpopular line has to be pursued. I do not want the House of Commons to extend its shadow over this subtle relationship with the broadcasting authorities. These authorities know what the legal position will be. I am sure that the people at the head of those authorities will have seen my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; they know what the new legal position is and they will abide by it. But if we extend parliamentary censorship we shall have taken the first step towards an evil every bit as bad in its way as the foul crimes we are hoping to combat by this legislation tonight.

11.15 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On the day after the broadcast by David O'Connell I attempted to raise the matter on a Private Notice Question and failed, and then did so under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure in order to bring it to the attention of the House.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present tonight because he has said inside the House and outside that the spate of murders in Northern Ireland recently was sparked off by the brutal murder of two members of the Northern Ireland judiciary—the


magistrate, Mr. McBirney, and Judge Conaghan.
What was most repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland was the reference made in that broadcast, and partly read by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), to the fact that these two members of the judiciary were warned by the IRA, told to resign from their posts and then executed. That part of the broadcast caused a wave of revulsion, and not only in Northern Ireland. Ulster Members had messages from people on this side of the water saying that this was a terrible happening.
The threat was made on that Sunday by David O'Connell that something would happen on this side of the water. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland are aware of the reality of the threats of the IRA. They must be taken seriously. People are saying that surely security could safeguard the lives of two members of the judiciary who had been warned and threatened by the IRA. Why was it that these men were murdered by the IRA, they ask.
This is a most serious matter. We should look carefully at the position. I would not be satisfied with the statement by the Attorney-General that the broadcasting authorities will look at the matter. We have heard this in Northern Ireland before. There we have been told on many occasions when protests have been made that these matters will be looked at again, and yet the media have been used as a propaganda machine for the IRA and other proscribed organisations.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: The hon. Member said that the broadcast caused a wave of deep revulsion. Does he not think that it was a good thing for that revulsion to be experienced? If that broadcast had not taken place, a great many people who regard what is happening as being something distant on the other side of the water would not have realised to the extent they now do how revolting it was.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Revulsion of that kind can be very serious because it can lead to retaliatory acts, and we have seen the result of revulsion in Birmingham last week. It would be a strange thing for the Committee to say that a wave a revulsion was a good thing.
That broadcast gave the IRA a national platform to put forward its views. The hon. Member for Derby, North told us that we should know what these men are thinking. The British troops, the policemen, the police reserve and the UDR in Northern Ireland know what they are thinking. The widows and the orphans of the security forces know what these men are thinking. They are out for blood. They are not interested in any political solution because their type of activity carried out in Birmingham last week, and carried out over past years in Northern Ireland, is one of frightening destruction. If they had a united Ireland tomorrow what sort of united Ireland would it be? It would be a repeat of the bloody civil war that tore Ireland apart after the British withdrew from the southern part of Ireland.
This House should look seriously at this important situation. We should not be prepared just to say that because the media have given a promise they should be permitted to carry on as they have carried on hitherto.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I intervene at this stage not necessarily to bring the debate to an end, although I hope that it might conceivably have that effect, but to try to introduce an ameliorative note into a discussion which, curiously, arouses deeper passions than the much wider issues raised by the Second Reading debate on which we spent six hours earlier. Our difficulty takes us to the heart of the matter of the difficulty involved in the Bill as a whole.
When I replied to the Second Reading debate I said towards the conclusion of my speech, I believe broadly with the support of nearly the whole House, that what we had to do in this situation was to take sufficiently resolute action to ensure that we were not failing to meet the needs of a critical situation and worried public opinion. Equally, there should not be such a panic reaction as to push us into a position in which we endangered the liberties to which we attach great importance.
I also said, I think again with the support of the great mass of the House, that I was introducing these powers on a temporary, six-monthly basis and they might need to be reviewed from six months to six months. We all want to see


the end of these powers as quickly as possible and hope that we are dealing with a relatively short-term situation. I strongly believe that it would be a grave disadvantage—I might almost say tragedy—if as a result of these special powers, which I hope will need to be fairly short-lived, we were in any way permanently to change the relationship of this House, and of any Government, with the broadcasting authorities.
There is a danger that we may be getting into this position. I attach—and so, I believe, does the overwhelming majority of all hon. Members—the greatest importance to the freedom of broadcasting and the freedom of the Press. The only point on which I took direct issue with the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts)—although I do not wholly agree with the amendment—was when he said something like "We must tell the broadcasting authorities that they are the servants of this House."

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I did not use those words.

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad to know that. The hon. Member implied that the authorities were subordinate to this House. I would very much regret it if this House thought that it ought to issue directives from time to time on issues on which it felt strongly, or that the broadcasting authorities felt that they had to act in a certain way. We want independent broadcasting. We certainly want responsible broadcasting, and I shall come to that.
We have to be careful about how we approach this issue. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) approached this matter in a moderate, responsible way. He said he thought that it could be reasonably resolved. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), speaking later when the debate had become a little heated, put three not unreasonable points.
He raised the question of the Government's view about such a broadcast in future. I should prefer not to comment on a broadcast in the past. Once a Home Secretary finds himself in the position of saying whether he approves or disapproves of a programme he is on dangerous ground. I say clearly that the

IRA having become an illegal organisation once the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, I would regard such a broadcast in future as wholly inappropriate.
Second, there can be discussions between myself and the heads of the broadcasting authorities. I believe that they have indicated in their public statements that they will wish to behave responsibly and that they will take great note of the feeling in the Committee this evening.
Third, there is an extreme sanction available. The Government can issue directives to the broadcasting authorities. They can in the last resort sack the chairmen and the governors. There is authority to do so, although I would deplore having to use it. I believe that the debate has made its point, and I hope that this matter will not be pressed to a Division.
If hon. Members are determined to have a Division, let us divide, but let us remember that we have approached this measure with a substantial degree of all-party agreement. We may have to have Divisions later but let us avoid them when we can. On reflection, I do not believe that there is much division of feeling in the Committee and that there would not be a desire as part of this short-term situation in any way permanently to change or to modify the independence of the broadcasting authorities. I believe that this is an issue that can be solved with good sense and responsibility on both sides.
Having responded fully to the spirit of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said earlier, and having answered the three points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, I believe that it would be reasonable for us to leave the broadcasting authorities to draw their own deductions from the debate which take taken place and to proceed to some other amendments which I hope we shall be able to deal with with less heat.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'six months' and insert' two years'.

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendments No. 4, in page 1, line 23, leave out '£400' and insert'£2,000'. and No. 5, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'five' and insert 'twenty'.

Mr. Cormack: The whole purpose of the Bill is to prevent terrorism. No one would doubt the sincerity or determination of the Secretary of State in presenting it. If the Bill is to prevent terrorism, if it is to deter people from committing these dastardly acts and if it is to have the effect the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee wish, then central to its purpose are the penalties within it.
If the powers that the right hon. Gentleman has taken are Draconian, I suggest that the penalties within the Bill are less than Draconian. I suggest that the maxima that are proscribed are far too low. If I may draw an analogy from a Bill before the House in 1971—namely, the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill—it was adjudged by the Committee deliberating on the Bill that the penalties prescribed were far too low to deter any potential polluter from committing an offence. That Committee increased considerably the penalties in that legislation. I believe that the penalties in this Bill are not of such an order as to deter.
I do not want my remarks in this context to be related to the issue of capital punishment and whether that is a deterrent. I should not want it to be thought that I am making a oblique reference to that. What I am suggesting is that penalties involving a term of six months' imprisonment and a fine not exceeding £400 in Clause l(l)(i) are not particularly swingeing.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Especially with a depreciating currency.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Cormack: Especially with a depreciating currency, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says. No account of inflation is taken in the Bill.
The people who are likely to be hauled before magistrates—the terrorists' runners, those who harbour, those who contrive—could be deterred by penalties. Whether the real villains can be deterred by the ultimate deterrent is a subject which we can debate at a later stage, but I believe that many of the people who commit any

of the offences detailed in the clause could be deterred if the penalties were a little more severe.
I am not saying that I stand or fall by the penalties suggested in these three amendments, but I seriously suggest to the Government that the penalties in the Bill are not sufficient. I very much hope that the Minister of State in his reply will assure us that the Government have taken the point on board and are prepared to do something about it, even at this very late stage. It is of the utmost importance that the Bill succeeds in its aims and objectives, and it would be a great tragedy if it failed because the penalties prescribed were not severe enough.
There are two other points I should like to mention. The first point is that when people are being removed and put out of harm's way, it will be to the advantage of everybody if there is the opportunity to keep them there for a little longer than is suggested in the clause.
The second point is that we are talking in terms of the maximum that can be imposed. A maximum as small as that in the Bill—six months' imprisonment, £400 fine or on conviction on indictment five years' imprisonment or a fine—does not fit the bill. I very much hope that the Government will indicate that they have some sympathy with the point I have raised.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) wishes to add a greater penalty to deter acts of terrorism. The commission of an act of terrorism as described by the hon. Member is an act contained in Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack: I did not say that. I was talking about the acts mentioned in the clause.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman referred to acts of terrorism and the necessity to deter such acts. If a member of the IRA commits an act of terrorism in the sense that he explodes a bomb in an enclosed place, there are provisions within the criminal law that can deal with that matter and exact very severe penalties indeed. We are concerned about the appropriate penalties to be meted out for the offences under Clause 1 of being a member of the IRA, or of soliciting or


inviting financial or other support, or of being at a meeting intended to further the activities of the IRA.
In seeking appropriate penalties to exact, the penalties in Clause 1 (1) (i) should be compared with the normal penalties in magistrates' courts. The normal penalty in the magistrates' court is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400. In any event, it does not really matter if the seriousness of the offence seems in the eyes of the prosecution to merit a rather greater sentence than that, because the prosecution can always ask that the case should go to a higher court, in which case one comes to the penalties under Clause l(l)(ii), which are exacted on conviction on indictment. There the maximum is five years' imprisonment or a fine, which, incidentally, is without limit. That would certainly be a more severe penalty as a maximum than the suggestion contained in the first two of the three amendments.
Therefore, the issue between the hon. Gentleman and the Government relates to his Amendment No. 5, which would increase the maximum penalty for a conviction on indictment to 20 years and/ or a fine of unlimited amount. Twenty years is in excess of the maximum penalty for conspiracy to commit murder, for which it is 10 years, or placing explosives with intent to do bodily harm, for which it is 14 years, or possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, for which the maximum is again 14 years.
It seems inappropriate that for membership of the body, and that alone, one should be able to receive a maximum penalty which is in excess of that for committing one of the acts of terrorism to which the hon. Member referred. I hope, therefore, that he will accept that the penalties suggested in the Bill are sufficient to deter people from being members of the IRA or, at least, from openly accepting membership of the IRA.
The clause was modelled on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which itself banned the IRA, and which seems to have been successful in Northern Ireland in at least controlling open membership of the IRA. I would hope that it would have the same effect in this country.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: May I in one sentence, in justice to my hon. Friend's argument on the first point concerning summary proceedings, put this to the Minister? Of course, if one wants bigger penalties one can go on indictment, but that takes more time, and speed is of the essence here. What my hon. Friend was concerned with was to get an emphatic penalty on summary conviction so that the matter could be disposed of quickly and be an effective deterrent even in the context of summary proceedings.

Mr. Cormack: I must confess that I am not altogether happy with what the Minister of State has said. I have doubts as to the effectiveness of the legislation at present in force in Northern Ireland, and I have doubts whether this legislation will be as effective as we all hope it will be here. In the interests, however, of unity and in the desire to see the Bill—which I want to see on the statute book—passed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 10, leave out
'and connected with Northern Irish affairs'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we shall debate Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 10, leave out from 'Kingdom' to 'or' in line 11.

Mr. Fowler: The amendment is important. In the Second Reading debate the point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that under the Bill the Secretary of State may by order proscribe terrorist organisations, but only those connected with Northern Irish affairs. The purpose of the amendment is to consider whether it would not be better for the Bill to go a stage further.
We appreciate that the Bill takes wide powers—Draconian powers, to use the Home Secretary's phrase—and that the Government are naturally reluctant to extend them unnecessarily. We also appreciate that Clauses 7 and 8 appear to go further and give more power to constables, and powers over control of entry, which apply to all terrorists. We also


appreciate—if I may say so, none better than a Birmingham Member—that our present battle is against a terrorist organisation connected with Northern Irish affairs; namely, the IRA.
But it is also our belief that we live in the age of the terrorist, that there are groups in many countries prepared to use the methods of the terrorist to bring pressure on Governments. Almost every week terrorists kill or injure innocent people in an attempt to force their will. Therefore, we ask whether the defences of the Bill are adequate to deal with the threat.
Would it not be better to have a Bill which allows us to proscribe any terrorist organisation, whether or not connected with Northern Irish affairs? After all, we were reminded only this week that not all terrorist actions which put at risk United Kingdom citizens are connected with Northern Ireland. The Palestinian terrorists who hijacked the British Airways airliner and murdered one of the passengers present a danger to the citizens of not only the United Kingdom but other countries.
Not all terrorist organisations can be described in neat geographical terms. At the same time as we debate these measures, West Germany is considering new proposals to deal with terrorists there. For the past few years the German police have been trying to counter a group which has gone from bank robberies to planting bombs to assassinations. I refer to the so-called Red Army faction, better known perhaps as the Baader-Meinhof group. Its aim is to destroy society as it now is, to create chaos to provoke an over-reaction from the authorities, and, when the society collapses, to be on hand to rebuild a society which it wants. In other words, as it cannot win by votes, what it seeks to achieve, it tries to win it by bombs.
I mention those two cases because I believe that we should note trends elsewhere in the world, including Europe. Unless we take note of those trends we may be unable to guard against the risk that we may have to face in this country. We should have defences against terrorists generally, not just against one kind of terrorism. That is the point of the amendment.
Would it not be better if we had an Act which was more flexible than the Bill appears to be? We are not asking the Government at this stage to add names to the list of proscribed organisations. We are asking them to consider whether we should not have an Act under which this would be possible if—and only if—the need arose.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: My name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Pebbles (Mr. Steel) appear on this amendment because we submitted an amendment in identical terms and share the reservations expressed from the Opposition Front Bench.
It is right to pause to consider whether it is right that the Bill should be framed so narrowly. I can understand the Home Secretary's desire not to have a Bill, temporary in character, which is wide in its scope, but there are a number of reasons why we should be cautious about the clause. One I mentioned on Second Reading; namely, that it is wrong to suggest to the Irish and Northern Ireland communities that they are the only sources of terrorism. Our memories of recent events are clear enough to make it obvious that that is not the case. We have not forgotten the Angry Brigade explosions. It would be foolish to imagine, even within the limited time scale of six months, that we can guarantee that there will not be other acts of terrorism similar in character but not emanating from the Northern Ireland situation.
We must also consider the possibility that the IRA, having been proscribed, will decide to try to operate through a generalised front organisation which does not explicity avow the same purposes in relation to Ireland. If it became in the interests of the IRA strategy to continue bombing and in a way which was being hindered by the legislation, it might seek to use some other front organisation.
We must also consider the position of the authorities if they are unable to discern the source of terrorist activity. What happens if we are confronted with a terrorist situation in which we naturally jump to the conclusion that the IRA is responsible but that may not be the case?
In the last few weeks I have begun to wonder whether we are slightly perverting justice by automatically assuming that a particular terrorist organisation is involved. In a number of cases it seems to be, but we must not jump readily to conclusions. In what position do we put the authorities if we require them to be satisfied that terrorism is related to Northern Ireland before they take action under the Bill?
I can understand the Secretary of State's reservations about having a wide Bill, but the amendment and amendments similar in character do not widen it to a very considerable extent. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I understand the feelings of the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). In drawing up the Bill, I considered carefully whether we should apply this restriction. I came to the conclusion firmly that it was better so to do, for the following reasons.
This is an emergency powers Bill introduced at short notice to deal with a particular position. In these circumstances, it is desirable that we should confine the Bill, so far as is reasonably possible, to dealing with the problem which confronts us and which justifies the exceptional measures we are introducing. We should not, under the threat of dealing with a particular situation, seek powers which the Government would not seek and which the House of Commons would not feel justified in giving the Government to deal possibly with different situations. Therefore, I decided that it was better to restrict the Bill in the way proposed.
Somebody said that I had stated that the Bill was to deal with a clear and present danger. They are the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes which I appropriated for the purpose, but they are suitable words to signify what we are dealing with. I do not think that it would be appropriate to extend the Bill's scope to the general terrorist threat under which, to a substantial extent, the world is living at present.
That does not mean that we do not regard other forms of terrorism as de-

testable and objectionable, but my desire—and I believe that of the Committee—is to get rid of the Bill as soon as we arrive at a position in which the threat of terrorism connected with Northern Ireland makes it possible to do without it. If we were trying to deal with world terrorism we should have to justify allowing the Bill to lapse in relation not merely to the Northern Ireland position but to whether all other forms of terrorism which beset the world had subsided. One would be in a foolish position if one allowed the Bill to lapse and some further act of terrorism occurred.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that we must know who exactly is committing acts of terrorism. That may arise, but if it does a more generous position will not help, because one has to know who is acting in that way before proscribing an organisation.

Mr. Beith: Whereas the person involved may be known to the authorities, the political objective might be less clear.

Mr. Jenkins: We are dealing here with proscribing an organisation and shall deal later with exclusion orders which are related to a particular position. One can probably deal with other forms of terrorism under more normal forms of deportation. The restriction which we have here, after consideration, deliberately applied in the interest of keeping the Bill as narrow as is reasonable, would in no way prevent us from dealing with the IRA if it were to change its name and manifestations. As I said on Monday, I regard that as quite likely, and it is a situation with which we may have to deal.
I can see that there are arguments both ways, but, in view of the exceptional nature of the powers which I am asking the House to vote at short notice, on balance I think that I am right to restrict those powers as far as possible.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I have listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, and I can see that he does not want to bring forward a very wide measure under the guise of something else. The Home Secretary will be the first to realise that we are dealing with a special situation. I believe that by widening the legislation we should make the Home Secretary's position stronger. If, for instance, another organisation tried to


act under cover of the IRA, the right hon. Gentleman's position would be strengthened, and he would not have to come back to the House of Commons with an amendment. I cannot see that he will lose anything by accepting an amendment which merely strengthens his hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) showed his great confidence in the Home Secretary by moving the amendment.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Those of us who deeply regret the necessity for the introduction of the Bill and are carrying through today's proceedings with great reluctance will agree with my right hon. Friend's oft-repeated statement that he wants to make the Bill as narrow as possible and does not want to use an immediate difficulty on which to base an action that goes a good deal wider than is necessary to deal with the immediate difficulty. We are all agreed about that.
I have difficulty in understanding precisely what is meant by "connected with" Northern Irish affairs. Other terrorist groups have been mentioned—the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Baader-Meinhof, and so on. We have to bear in mind that groups with a stated and admitted political aim sometimes recruit mercenary terrorists. The Japanese are notable examples. There are Japanese groups which have acted throughout Europe in support of the PLO and the Baader-Meinhof group. Suppose one of these Japanese groups should choose to act on behalf or to do something that would suit the purpose of, an Irish terrorist organisation. Could it be within the terms of "connected with"? It would be very difficult to establish such a connection in the courts.
It seems to me that when an outrage takes place like a bombing, two people are terrorists and not one—the man who plants the bomb and the man who supplied it. The chap who plants the bomb might be a Turk or a Mexican or an Argentinian who has never professed the least interest in Northern Ireland affairs. He may have done it out of sympathy with the objectives of the bomber; he may have done it purely out of a desire to be awkward to Her Majesty's Government.
We have to ask ourselves what were the motivations that led the Libyans to

supply arms for terrorist purposes in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the Libyans cared two pennyworth of cold tea about the liberation of Northern Ireland. All they cared about was they did not like Britain and were supplying bombs to the IRA or other organisations which would be a nuisance to Britain.
In an honestly interrogative spirit, I ask my right hon. Friend: if the Libyans or anyone else difficult to identify supplied bombs to an organisation concerned with Northern Ireland affairs and listed in the schedule, would they be "connected with"? If not, ought they not to be? There is a genuine problem here.
I see something in the view which has been expressed by hon. Members opposite, that the words
… and connected with Northern Irish affairs …
needlessly limit my right hon. Friend's ability to deal with things which have an impact in Northern Ireland but which he might find difficult proving in the courts are connected with Northern Irish affairs. I ask him to think about whether there is not some substance in this amendment.

Mr. Ian Gow: I support the amendment and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). When the Home Secretary indicated that his advice was that we should reject the amendment, he was in a sense talking against his own Bill.
The Bill is described as the "Prevention of Terrorism Bill", not as the "Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill". We are, at this stage of history facing a grave threat of terrorism and not only a threat of terrorism linked solely with the affairs of that part of the United Kingdom which is in Northern Ireland. When we are discussing a Bill for the prevention of terrorism, we should not restrict the possibility of proscription simply to that aspect of terrorism which relates to Northern Ireland. I believe that it would be wrong for the Committee to exclude proscription of terrorist bodies which are wholly unconnected with Northern Ireland.
12 midnight.
There is a second aspect of the matter to which I draw attention. It would be


open for a challenge to be mounted in the courts as to propriety of any action taken by the Home Secretary under Clause 1 (3) if it was suggested that the organisation was not connected with Northern Irish affairs. In order that the right hon. Gentleman can by order add to Schedule 1, presumably he has to satisfy the courts that the organisation which he is seeking to proscribe is, to use the words of the Bill,
… connected with Northern Irish affairs".
But why should it be right for us to limit the proscription of terrorist organisations just to those which are involved with Northern Irish affairs, and why should we add to the burden and dilemma of the right hon. Gentleman in deciding which order to make proscribing a terrorist organisation and put him in this added difficulty of facing a possible challenge in the courts as to whether the terrorist organisation is connected with Northern Irish affairs?
Finally, the very reference to Northern Ireland seeks to emphasise that division which exists between the United Kingdom and that part of the United Kingdom just across the Irish Channel. We should have just as much revulsion and just as much of a legal weapon against terrorist organisations, for example, in Wales or Scotland or in the county of Sussex.
It is for that reason that I hope the Home Secretary will accept the amendment, failing which I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will press it to a Division.

Mr. Greville Janner: The trouble with the views advanced by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is that it is not a question for the courts to decide whether an organisation is connected with Northern Ireland. The question is one totally for the Home Secretary. The clause reads:
The Secretary of State may by order add to Schedule 1 of this Act any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism …".
My worry is not connected with my right hon. Friend, who I am sure will exercise his powers with discretion. He may not always be Home Secretary. We

do not know who is to have the handling of the arbitrary powers which we are asked to pass over to whoever may be Home Secretary at any time——

Mr. George Cunningham: Six months.

Mr. Janner: For a period of six months. But it is a period which could be extended.
These are very remarkable powers to give to a Minister of the Crown, and they are not powers which can be challenged by the courts. They are not even powers which, as under the Industrial Relations Act, a court has even the appearance of being able to challenge. That was the situation which applied where it appeared to the Secretary of State for the Employment that certain circumstances existed where a cooling-off period or a secret strike ballot should be held. In such a case, the courts could consider at least the legality of that. The courts have no power under this Bill. These are arbitrary powers given to the Home Secretary. Therefore, they must be kept as narrow as possible. That is why it is right that they should be preserved as narrowly as they have been made.
Despite its title,
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill",
this legislation is designed for Northern Ireland. It is made for Northern Ireland. It concerns movement between one part and another part of the United Kingdom. We are being asked to pass this legislation for a particular reason—our revulsion at a series of outrages which have emanated from a particular source. We have just the same revulsion for terrorism from other sources. It may be that one day other measures may have to be taken.
This is a sad evening for Parliament. In my view, we must pass this legislation and give these powers to the Home Secretary. However, as these powers are not to be challenged in the courts, they must be kept as narrow as possible.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There are just two points that I want to add to what has been said.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made an observation which carries considerable weight. However, we are not concerned


only with the Short Title of the Bill. The Long Title reads:
A Bill to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism, and to give power to exclude certain persons from Great Britain or the United Kingdom in order to prevent acts of terrorism, and for connected purposes.
There is nothing about Northern Ireland there.
Clause 7(1)(b) provides:
A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be…
(b) a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
There is nothing about Northern Ireland there.
Clearly, the Bill is brought in to deal with a problem which has been with us for some time but is in its acute manifestation at this moment. To a large measure it is associated with Northern Ireland. But it certainly is not true that all the bombs which have been planted in Britain in the last 18 months have been connected with Northern Ireland. They have not.
If it is right, as I think it is, to give the major power of arrest without warrant in Clause 7 (1)(b)—not connected with Northern Ireland—why is it wrong to give the much less significant power to the Home Secretary proposed in Amendment No. 7? It seems that he is being more concerned about the minor point than the major point.
Since the Bill has been drafted to deal with the problem of terrorism—not terrorism in Northern Ireland—let us not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar when this is not a hypothetical consideration. There have been bombings in this country recently by bodies totally dissociated from Northern Ireland as far as one can tell. We do not know whether the bombs that went off last night were associated with Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is a pity unnecessarily to restrict the Home Secretary's powers in this respect, bearing in mind that the Bill, when enacted, has a life of only six months unless the House of Commons by affirmative resolution extends it.
I point out that the argument by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West would have been stronger if we were passing a Bill which would become part of the permanent law of this country without any further act by the House

of Commons or, indeed, by Parliament. That is not the position. The Bill has a limitation. It dies after six months unless and until the Secretary of State asks for an affirmative resolution from the House of Commons.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that there is nothing to be lost in practice and there could be much to be gained because these powers could be used at short notice without the House being recalled during a recess. There is no holiday in bombing because the House happens to be in Summer Recess. The Home Secretary may want these powers when the House is not in session, and he would not have them unless he got Parliament together again just to delete the words that we are now trying to delete by the amendment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again on this.

Mr. Stainton: In drafting Amendment No. 6, which is identical in its precise effect to Amendment No. 7, I had three points in mind, and, however repetitious, as the author of Amendment No. 6 I feel entitled to make them now.
First, I was assailed by the wording of the Long Title of the Bill which makes no reference whatever to Northern Ireland. I was very much struck by the point that was made so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on Clause 7(1)(b). Presumably the right of arrest is not consequent upon paragraph (a) or (c), and paragraph (b) stands by itself and apart

Mr. Beith: The use of terrorism is defined rather well in Clause 9, where it says that it is
the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear,
without reference to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stainton: Precisely. There is a later amendment on the definition of terrorism, and I hope that we shall progress to that in due course. I was struck by the specific reference in connection with Northern Irish affairs in Clause 1, and this recurs in Clause 3, to which we shall come later.
There is another point about terrorism in this country arising from activities that may or may not be directly connected with Northern Ireland. How one proves


the connection, and what is the meaning of those words, was dealt with acutely by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
There is a final point that arises out of an article in The Times on 25th November. Let us not debate the lineage of Lord Chalfont, political or otherwise, but, bearing in mind the office that he occupied under the Crown, one must attach significance to his statement. He said:
So far we have been comparatively fortunate in that the activities of international terrorism have been isolated and relatively unco-ordinated. There, is however, some evidence of links between various revolutionary organisations.
Certainly"—
and that is a categoric statement according to my interpretation of the word—
in Britain there has been collaboration between the IRA and the extremist organisations totally unconnected with the Irish problem.
One does not have a great deal to go on but, in view of the three factors running through my mind and this article by Lord Chalfont, I felt that I had to put down Amendment No. 6—[Interruption.]

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall) rose——

Mr. Stainton: No, and I shall not get stuffed, either. I shall proceed with my comments which I feel are to the point.

Mr. Bidwell: I did not say that.

Mr. Stainton: I had those three factors in mind, and I shall not persist with Amendment No. 6 if I get some concrete assurances on these matters from the Home Secretary.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am grateful to those hon. Members who have tried to press on me powers that I am not seeking. This is in a sense a self-denying ordinance. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that it is not a matter for the courts but a matter of what "appears to the Secretary of State". My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) put that succinctly.
There is a certain validity in talking of a difference. There is no difference between Clause 1 (3) and Clause 3 (1), but there is a difference between Clause 7 (1),

although not the whole of it—paragraphs (a) and (c) are governed by what is in Parts I and II—and Clauses 1 and 3. It is only in relation to Clause 7(1)(b) that there might be thought to be a slight difference here.
The difference is to be explained by the fact that what we are dealing with here is the consideration by myself, or whoever might be Home Secretary, of whether it was right and proper to proscribe an organisation, whereas Clause 7(1)(b) relates to whether or not it is right for a constable to arrest a person whom he reasonably suspects to be
… concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
I would consider it more reasonable that I should be allowed to take into consideration the affiliations of the organisation than that a constable should have to make a decision on the spot as to whether to arrest in those circumstances. So, although there is a difference, it is a reasonable difference in relation to the nature of the matter.
I cannot pretend that the Bill could not stand with the amendment, nor even that it would be weakened, but I give the Committee my advice that on balance we should proceed cautiously with these powers. I believe that some people would be more disturbed about them if they were more widely drawn. I am not asking for them to be more widely drawn. It would be unusual to force upon a Minister who was bringing exceptional powers before the Committee powers he did not regard it as right to have.

Mr. Hooley: This discussion shows very well the inherent dangers of this type of legislation. As soon as we start legislating proscriptions there is always a danger that people may seek to use the legislation to pursue quarrels which are not directly the matter under consideration. I believe that the Home Secretary is right to define this matter as narrowly and as rigorously as he can in the time available to the House. I hope that amendments like this which seek extensively to broaden the powers that the House wishes to give my right hon. Friend will be resisted.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This has been a valuable debate. The purpose of the amendment was to give a warning, which was added to by Members of all three


parties. The terrorist threat to Britain is not confined to organisations connected with Northern Irish affairs. We were trying to define the threat. I did not altogether follow the point of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Nor were we asking the right hon. Gentleman to add names to the list of proscribed organisations. We were simply asking him to consider whether it would not be better to make it possible to add names if the need arose.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Home Secretary should have absolute arbitrary power to add the name of any organisation he wishes, without challenge from the courts, for the remaining period of six months?

Mr. Fowler: No. The hon. Gentleman should study the Bill. The Home Secretary does not have that power even now. I am trying to deploy the case that it might be considered preferable that the Home Secretary should have the power to recommend that those names should go forward.
Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, clearly we on this side have no intention of trying to delay the Bill. Of course we recognise that the present danger comes from the IRA, and that is a danger that we most urgently want to guard against. If other terrorist organisations not connected with Northern Ireland affairs appear in this country, I greatly hope that the Home Secretary will come to the House of Commons for further powers.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sedgemore: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
The amendment is partly a probing one and partly one of substance. Those of us who tabled it are somewhat concerned about why this provision is necessary. We speak only about the law of England. I dare say that there are some Scots who can speak for the other land.
As we understand it, as the law of England stands, if any person is found in possession of such a document and is subsequently arrested, or is arrested and is subsequently found to be in possession

of such a document, that would be evidence which a magistrate or jury could evaluate as to its evidential value.
We cannot see that it adds to the existing law to enshrine this in a statutory provision. With all the conceivable types of evidence which may show that a person belongs to a proscribed organisation, why in this clause is one type of evidence singled out and given some special weight and character?
The provision could operate in some curious ways. It will be an offence to be in possession of a document relating
to the affairs of a proscribed organisation",
and in Scotland that will be sufficient evidence to show that a person is a member of a proscribed organisation. It follows that if in Scotland a journalist is found to be in possession of a letter from a member of the IRA, that will be sufficient evidence to show that the journalist is a member of the IRA. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it can be described as sufficient evidence of that.
Surely it is not the responsibility of Parliament to give statutory form to something which seems on the surface to be gobbledegook.
It is also possible to visualise this provision operating in a sinister and nasty fashion. It is the easiest thing in the world to push a letter through a postbox and then tip off the police that somebody is a member of a proscribed organisation. Then one goes to that person's house with either an agent provocateur or perhaps a member of the IRA who wishes to cause trouble for someone who either is or is not a member of that organisation. In Scotland the fact that the police find that the person has that letter is sufficient evidence that he is a member of a proscribed organisation. In England the court has it drawn to its attention that there is some weight or character to be given to that evidence.
The last point which concerns me is just how retrospective is the clause. I appreciate that the next subsection enables a person to prove in the face of evidence that he is not a member at the time he is found in possession of the document. But that places the burden of proof on the defendant and not on the prosecution. Are we saying that people who were members of Sinn Fein four years ago have to start burning letters they have received about the IRA?


Will the Attorney-General spell out what is behind the clause, because on the surface it appears to have some curious connotations?

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has made a powerful case for the amendment and for the deletion of the subsection, but, powerful as it was, it was an understatement of the case. I want to carry his probing a bit further and ask for a definition of some of the terms used.
What is meant by the phrase "possession by"? At what point does one come into possession of a thing? My hon. Friend said that it is all too easy for someone to put a letter in a pillar box and, while it is being carried by the Post Office, to tip off the police for when it is delivered.
It is also possible to send a letter not by putting it in a pillar box but by pushing it through the letter box of a person's front door. Here I have a question for you, Mr. Thomas, conscious as I am of your wisdom and experience. Suppose I come along early one morning and push a letter through your front door. There it is lying on the door mat. You do not even know it is there. You are busy consuming your corn flakes and reading your morning newspaper. Perhaps it came even earlier. Then, Mr. Thomas, you are lying in your bath singing some ancient Welsh air and the letter is lying on your doormat. Again you do not know that it is there. Is that letter in your possession? You are utterly innocent of it. You did not solicit it. You know nothing about it.

The Chairman: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting me worried. Perhaps he would be kind enough to address his questions to someone who can answer them.

Mr. Mikardo: I was selecting you, Mr. Thomas, as the best example in the House of an innocent party. I wanted to make the point that even the most innocent person could be subject to suspicion under the clause.
I selected the most innocent party, but I am always happy to take your advice. I am prepared now to assume that the letter was thrown through the letter box

of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. There he is in his bath singing some ancient Jewish air and the letter is lying on his door mat. He did not solicit it. He knows nothing about it or its contents. The sender is a stranger to him. Is that letter in his possession? If it is, under this Bill the very fact that the letter is lying on his doorstep while he is in his bath is sufficient evidence that he is a member of the Provisional IRA.
12.30 a.m.
Let me take another case of possession. Suppose my right hon. and learned Friend is walking along the street and someone, some "un-pickpocket"—unlike a pickpocket who takes something out of one's pocket—puts a letter into his pocket. Is it then in his possession? If anyone thinks that I am being theoretical about the possibility of someone putting a letter into the pocket of an innocent party I would remind my right hon. and learned Friend that it is not so many years ago since a police officer put a half brick into the pocket of someone who subsequently came very near to "getting it in the snitch" as a result. So it is possible for some ill-advised and ill-intentioned person to put a letter into the pocket of an innocent party. Will my right hon. Friends tell me whether that constitutes possession under the terms of this subsection?
So much for possession.
I want now to do a little more probing about:
addressed to him as a member of a proscribed organisation".
To my simple mind—I am not a lawyer and do not understand legal language—that could have two interpretations. Suppose a letter is addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend as "Mr. S. Silkin, member of the Provisional IRA." Is that addressed to him as a member of the proscribed organisation? I would think that that is one possible interpretation of this subsection. That would be all right, but in common sense the phrase could also be valid if it said "Mr. X, member of the Provisional IRA" whether or not he were a member. It is still addressed to him as a member of that organisation. Therefore, some malicious, ill-intentioned person has only to pick a victim and address a letter to him by


mail and describe him as a member of this organisation for that to be sufficient evidence under this clause that he is a member of that organisation.
Or it may not be addressed to him as a member of the organisation. It may be addressed not to "Mr. S. Silkin, member of the Provisional IRA". It could be addressed to him just as "Mr. S. Silkin" but it might relate or purport to relate to the affairs of a proscribed organisation. There is some young university student who is doing a thesis on subversive organisation in Northern Ireland. She sends my right hon. and learned Friend a copy of this thesis and says "I would appreciate your comments on this piece. I have written relating to the affairs of the Provisional IRA." It is clear that the intention of this subsection is not to cover that. But we have to deal with the words not according to their intention but according to their meaning. There is no doubt that this young lady's thesis relates to the affairs of the proscribed organisation. The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has it in his possession is enough. He did not ask for it. The fact that it is in his possession is evidence, or in Scotland "sufficient evidence", that he belongs to the organisation.
We all get a lot of unsolicited mail from a lot of organisations. Suppose the organisation named in Schedule 1, or any other organisation which may be added by order from time to time, circulates all hon. Members asking for support. If that were to happen every one of us would be in possession of a document emanating from a proscribed organisation. That could be taken as evidence that we were members of a proscribed organisation. I am a member of at least 743 organisations that write to me regularly seeking support for their cause. I could be placed in some difficulty.
That is not the intention of the Bill. Any sensible man would realise that, but we have to deal, as we have been told repeatedly by our seniors and betters in the House, not with intentions but with what words mean. If we consider the matter in that way we must realise that these powers are so wide as to be terrifying. A little while ago my right hon. Friend was saying that with the consent and approval of the Committee it was terribly important to keep this Bill as narrow as possible. This subsection is

not narrow. It is as wide as 10 barn doors laid side by side. The exercise of these powers could go very much wider than anything which we have been told is the Government's intention.
I am all for dealing with terrorists but I am not for a situation in which innocent people can be labelled by the action of others to be terrorists. This is a charter for the informer, for the snooper, for the malicious man of ill-will who has a grudge against another bloke. I support the amendment on those grounds. I hope that the Government will accept it, but if they do not, I hope that the amendment will be pressed and carried.

Mr. John Mendelson: We have now reached the first major occasion when hon. Members who have supported and are supporting the principles of the Bill—and I have urged the Government to go forward with emergency legislation—must begin seriously to question the Government on whether what they are doing is necessary. My argument is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). I believe that by putting absurdity on top of absurdity I may make it easier rather than more difficult for my right hon. Friend to reply.
I do not believe that many of the dangers that my hon. Friend pointed out are realistic. I do not believe that this subsection is designed to facilitate snooping into the correspondence of hon. Members or of most people. I do not believe that the danger of planting such a document is very real. I agree that in the past other things have been planted. That is why we are dealing with a serious matter. However, I do not believe that we are dealing only with the planting of a document—for example, a letter. There are other weightier matters.
Why do the Government want the subsection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow rightly seeks to remove? That is the burden of the case that the Government have to answer. If somebody is suspected of possibly being connected with the IRA, and if a document of this kind is found in his possession, it will be regarded as an important part of the evidence. But, clearly, the Home Secretary wants to be absolutely sure that he asked for only the minimum powers.
If that is the principle underlying my right hon. Friend's approach to these matters, why introduce the subsection? Membership of an organisation like the IRA is not like being a member of one of the major political parties or of a stamp-collecting society. So far as we know, members of the IRA do not conduct their business by writing each other letters about the kind of attack they wish to prepare. That is not the way in which IRA members operate. It would be much simpler for the police if they did operate in that way.
It is more likely that there are other more substantial pieces of evidence which the Government or the police authorities would seek to use to mount an indictment against a person or group of persons. On the other hand, if there is no such serious case to be made on this provision alone, there could be harm in having the provision in the Bill, although it may be regarded only as potential evidence additional to other pieces of evidence available to the police authorities. Therefore, unless there are powerful reasons for acting otherwise, the Government would be well advised to strengthen their position by adopting the amendment.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I wish to try to allay some of the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). I believe that the important words in the provision are "shall be evidence". The hon. Gentleman sought to raise the horrific possibilities of what would happen when letters arrived on the doorstep of the Attorney-General while in his bath. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be "in possession"? Would he be guilty under the subsection? The answer is that he would not be.
The important point is that the provision does not say "shall be conclusive evidence". If it were conclusive evidence, in those circumstances no answer could be advanced by the Attorney-General, but I emphasise that the clause as drafted talks of the fact that there "shall be evidence". That means that the Attorney-General or anybody who in those circumstances finds himself the subject of prosecution can rebut the proposition that he is a member of a proscribed organisation. In those circumstances it is beside the point to say that without

knowledge he would not be guilty of possession. It is not conclusive and is, therefore, rebuttable. The Attorney-General would have no difficulty in rebutting the proposition, and I suspect his answer would be "We are dealing with a difficult and urgent situation".
I would not wish to see this provision in an ordinary piece of criminal legislation. However, we are dealing not with ordinary legislation but with legislation designed specifically to deal with an urgent situation. Therefore, I believe the dangers raised by the hon. Gentleman in moving the amendment are fantasies and do not represent a real danger to the citizen.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) raised an interesting question about the subsection. The point he made is perfectly valid. We are dealing here with a new offence of—in shorthand—belonging to the IRA. How does a court establish that a man brought before it belongs to the IRA? Any kind of admissible evidence may be used to establish that fact: direct evidence that he has asserted that he belongs to the IRA, for example, or evidence that he has paraded in company with IRA under an IRA banner. There could be evidence that he had addressed a meeting of the IRA.
All that evidence is only prima facie evidence. In every case where it is brought before the court, it is subject to rebuttal by the man himself giving an innocent explanation of his actions which is acceptable to the court. In fact, I put it too strongly. If the innocent explanation leaves a doubt in the mind of the court, he does not have to explain it away completely. If it leaves a doubt in the mind of the court that he is a member of the IRA, he cannot be convicted.

Mr. John Lee: My hon. Friend uses the phrase "sufficient evidence", which at least as far as Scottish law is concerned seems to rebut the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew).

Mr. Lyon: Not being expert in the law of Scotland, I have taken advice about that matter, and I understand that the


phrase in Scottish law "sufficient evidence" does not mean what it means in English. It means admissible evidence, which may be rebutted and which, if not rebutted, could incriminate. I would have said that that was exactly the same as "prima facie evidence" in English law. But I understand that I must not use that phrase about it. It means roughly the same as I have indicated.
In those circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West is probably on to a valid point in saying that if there is found upon the person who is accused of being a member of the IRA a document
addressed to him as a member of a proscribed organisation, or relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of a proscribed organisation, or emanating or purporting to emanate from a proscribed organisation",
prima facie one would think that it could be evidence. The only reason for the subsection is simply to put that matter out of any doubt and out of an abundance of caution to indicate that it is evidence. It is evidence only prima facie, and it can be rebutted by the man.
If I may turn to the amusing speech of——

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, in the absence of a clause such as this, the possession of letters or—to be fanciful—a membership card of the IRA or any other documents of that kind would not be admissible? I am sure he is not suggesting that they would not be admissible in court. Therefore, if we include a clause of this kind, the courts will assume that it must have some meaning, and the implication of that meaning is that the evidence will be conclusive as distinct from merely prima facie.

Mr. Lyon: It would be a perverse reading of the language of the subsection to say that it is conclusive. It is quite clearly not conclusive. It states that the possession of the document "shall be evidence", but it does not say that it shall be conclusive evidence, and it is not intended that it should be conclusive evidence. The only purpose of putting the subsection in is to make it clear that possession of the document can be prima facie evidence.

Mr. Stainlon: I take the point just made by the hon. Member for Mitcham

and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), that in ordinary circumstances such documents would be admissible anyway as evidence. There must surely be some overriding purpose in enshrining this matter in the subsection.

Mr. Lyon: It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the court would in any circumstances regard this as prima facie evidence. All that the clause is intended to do is to put that part of the argument out of doubt. I do not accept the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), that this could be in any sense conclusive evidence. It is clear from the clause that it could not. In those circumstances, there is no danger other than the danger referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).

Sir Michael Havers: I am concerned about this, because the words are very similar to words used in the Emergency Provisions Act. If it is said that the expression "evidence used simply as evidence" used in the House by the Minister means "prima facie evidence", which is a term of art, that will be understood by many courts to mean very much more than evidence by itself. Prima facie evidence, as I understand it, is evidence which, if not rebutted, can satisfy a court in order to enable it to convict.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct. The weight of the evidence is a matter to be assessed by the court, and the determination of whether it is a prima facie case is a matter for the court. I accept that I have gone too far in suggesting that the piece of evidence in itself would mean that the court would accept that a prima facie case had been made out. It is evidence, and that is all.
When I fell into error I was seeking to distinguish it from a phrase used about its being conclusive evidence. It is only a matter that can be put before the court in order that the court may assess whether there is a prima facie case calling for an explanation from the accused.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that "shall" does not mean a prima facie case, the


"shall" should read "may". If it means "may", the subsection means no more than would already exist in the law without the subsection.

Mr. Lyon: All that it means is that it could not be said that when the document is sought to be introduced as evidence it is not inadmissible. It may be that the normal law of evidence in any case is wide enough to cover those matters. All that is suggested in the subsection is that to put it out of any doubt this is what the document is in fact. It is a piece of evidence that may be put before the court. [H Ms: "Shall."] It is a piece of evidence that may be put before the court. When it is, it shall be evidence, but that does not mean that it is conclusive evidence.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. We cannot have six, seven or eight hon. Members on their feet at once.

Mr. George Cunningham: Some of us are concerned in case the existence of the provision, although in the Government's eyes it only makes clear the present position, should be held by the court to be an advance on the position as it would be but for the subsection. There is a perfectly common and normal way of dealing with the situation, by inserting the words "for the removal of doubt". If the words "for the removal of doubt" were inserted, no court could hold that the existence of the subsection was intended to advance the position further than the most generous interpretation which could be put on it without the subsection being there. If it were possible for the Government to go along those lines by making an amendment in another place, since there is not one to that effect on the Notice Paper—[hon. Members: "What about Report?"]—or on Report, some of us would feel more satisfied.

Mr. Lyon: I will consider the matter before Report, but the position is as I have indicated. It is simply a question of establishing whether the evidence is admissible in a case in which a man is charged with being a member of the IRA.
I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green

and Bow about whether a person is in possession of a piece of evidence even though he does not know that it has come on the premises which he occupies. As I understand the law, that is not possession of the material evidence. There must be knowledge, and it has come into the control of the person in whose possession it is said to be. Therefore, it would have to be shown that it was within his control and that it was within his knowledge that it was within his control. In those circumstances, it would rule out most of the suggestions which have been made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mikardo: What about the half brick?

Mr. Lyon: My hon. Friend refers to the half brick. It is always possible for a corrupt policeman to frame people with evidence which he has planted on them. But we are not able to defend ourselves against the corruptibility of a police officer in those circumstances except by the process of the ordinary criminal trial. But the process of the ordinary criminal trial will apply to this charge just as much as it applies to any other criminal charge. The burden of proof will be on the prosecution. It will be open to the accused to say "This evidence was planted upon me", and it will be open to the court, having heard all the evidence, to say that it has a doubt about the matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have four or five Members intervening at once. Perhaps the Minister would care to indicate to which hon. Member he wishes to defer.

Mr. Lyon: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Ron Thomas: Most of my hon. Friends have been discussing what happens when someone who finds a letter in his possession comes before the court. We should be concerned with the fact that he can be detained for a number of days. Is that the case? Two days may be extended to five days. The person may be in custody for a fair amount of time before the Court hears the evidence against him.

Mr. Lyon: If the police have admissible evidence which they wish to advance


to prove that a man is a member of the IRA, they have the power to arrest and to hold for a period in pursuance of that arrest. What my hon. Friend is saying is that it may be possible in certain circumstances for a man to be held when he is completely innocent of the charge. That is the position in criminal law in relation to almost any offence. The only check against that is that if the police use their power arbitrarily in that there never was any reasonable ground for suspecting that a person was a member of the IRA, there are means of checking the police. But in relation to evidence which is clearly admissible which may be produced to show that a man is a member of the IRA, yes, that is true.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I am not a lawyer, which may be a relief to hon. Members in the light of the events of the last half-hour, but the Minister seems to have been guilty of the sort of inanity, or, indeed, insanity, that only lawyers fall into.
We are all aware that the Bill gives the police certain powers which in terms of our traditions are frightening. We are all aware that a person can be arrested merely on a hunch—a feeling—on the part of an individual police officer. But it is wide of the mark to say that that is not terribly important, because a document can be read and reasonably understood.
Most policemen are ordinary men who may not know the difference between a Seventh-Day Adventist and a Fascist and might, by construing a printed document, wrongly take a man into custody. We have to think in terms of the climate that would inevitably be created by the Bill. The man is taken into prison. What happens to his family? People will say "There is no smoke without fire. He has been away in the pokey-hole for the last five days. There must be something up. Let us go and smash his windows." Then on the sixth day the police let the man go and say "We are sorry; we made a mistake. The officer did not understand dialectical materialism" or "the theology of a weird religious sect." All this time the wife is being driven mad and the children are being terrorised. That is what can happen because a man is arrested on the misconstruction of a piece of paper.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Minister of State speaks soothingly, but he has failed to convince several hon. Members, and he will have perceived that the disquiet is not confined to one side of the Committee. Speaking as another non-lawyer, I should like to ask him this question, stupid though it may appear. If the purpose is to state that this kind of documentary evidence may be used in evidence against a person arrested in this way, why is it necessary to specify that particular form of evidence and not other forms of evidence?

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I wish to support the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on that point. The Minister of State told us that the evidence referred to in subsection (6) is prima facie evidence, and he illustrated several other kinds of prima facie evidence. In all logic, we should state either all the forms of prima facie evidence or none. The singling out of one kind of prima facie evidence suggests strongly that that evidence is to be treated as superior to other forms of evidence. That is the nub of the problem.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). The clause signifies that if a person has physical possession of a document he has the onus of proving that he did not know it was in his possession. The onus is shifted on to him by the prosecution.
Then there is the question of the word "shall". Subsection (6) reads:
The possession … shall be evidence … of that person belonging to the organisation …".
That means clearly, in my judgment, that once again we have a case where a person is to be found guilty unless he can prove that he is not a member of the organisation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I, too, am somewhat concerned about this clause, and in particular about the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. As my hon. Friend went through defining and re-defining, withdrawing and qualifying, I ended up with subtractions and additions of what he said—in effect, that "the possession by a person of a document addressed to him as a member and which may be produced in court, and so on,


shall be evidence."I understand that that is a gloss of what my hon. Friend is putting on the words, but it is indicative of the confusion he is showing, in that he does not understand, and presumably the Government do not understand, what they are trying to do and achieve in the clause.
If the Government do not understand it and have become confused with the explanation, it is fair for us to say that if they, with all their wealth of brains and intelligence and advice do not understand it, we on the back benches are entitled to be slightly confused and somewhat diffident about the clause.
We have had it suggested that a wife might go mad while her husband was in the pokey-hole, with the children being terrorised. But there is more to it than that even. It has more sinister overtones. Suppose a chap has a copy of one of the published organs of one of the Irish republican armies. He might have found it and picked it up. But his name might be Michael O'Hara or something like it. Suspicion falls on him when there is a swoop on a pub of the kind we had in London recently, when a dozen men were stood up against the counter and searched. He is then detained. Normally, he could be held for only 48 hours. But under this Bill he can be held seven days. The Home Secretary will say, "We found this man in a well-known dive for Irishmen in London with a copy of a newspaper in his pocket which he may or may not have known he had in his pocket, and we have to make further inquiries."
Perhaps the chap has just landed off the boat, or has come on holiday. Inquiries are made and he is released. But by chance he is found the following day in another pub with perhaps a leaflet he has had pushed into his hand by the IRA. This time he becomes a candidate for an exclusion order because, although the authorities cannot pin anything on him, the last time they had him they had him on suspicion of being a member of the IRA because of a document in his pocket.
It is quite true that, as the law stands at the moment, possession of documents can be used in evidence. They may be indicative of a person's state of mind or of his loyalties. It is open to the person so charged, as the law stands, to

rebut that kind of evidence. If that law was satisfactory when we had members of the UDA on trial in Scotland on sufficient evidence that these were documents that they had in their possession, and when we had various people associated with the IRA and other organisations in this country with evidence produced of possession of documents indicative of their loyalties, why do we need this additional clause, the meaning of which even Ministers do not appear to understand?
Is not this a situation where judges, seeing provisions now enshrined in emergency legislation, in certain circumstances on a given issue are bound to say, "This is to be interpreted conclusively as evidence of membership"?

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Perhaps the Committee will find it of some assistance to hear my own experience in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, due soon to be renewed and being looked at by the Gardiner Committee. Section 19(6) is, word for word, what the Committee is now debating in the context of this part of the United Kingdom.
I find myself living with the Emergency Provisions Act, especially as it affects detention, on a day-to-day, night-to-night basis. The signature on the document ordering detention is mine and mine alone, and the decision is mine in the executive sense in which the ICO is first signed, before it goes to commissioners, who are lawyers, who listen to the arguments deployed and then take the decision on my signature.
The aspect of membership of a proscribed organisation is one part of the evidence for detention. It is one part of the evidence for going through the court. The matter is considered carefully, because of concern with this aspect. That is why the Gardiner Committee, an eminent body of lawyers, is looking at the question.
In putting the case for proscription in this country, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed it in the context of public opinion and what the public will think about a proscribed organisation parading, and so on. I deal with it in a different context in Northern Ireland. I deal with it in the context of detention, and evidence of membership in that sense.
In my experience, in a large number of cases membership of a proscribed organisation—not in the context of what the public think or how it looks—is only a make-weight. The evidence of someone going against the law whether it be that of detention or otherwise—is always far more weighty than membership of a proscribed organisation—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen. If practical experience in Northern Ireland from day to day is not a matter that the Committee ought to take into account, it is a sad state of affairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is irrelevant."] It is relevant. This whole matter of proscription and of offences against the state is being looked at by the Gardiner Committee. [Interruption.] This evidence is relevant because this legislation, if it becomes law, will be used in the same way as in Northern Ireland. I think that we should take that into account.

Mr. Litterick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Rees: I will give way, but I should like to make this point first. The whole matter is being looked at by the Gardiner Committee. I can only tell the Committee that in the sense in which the argument is being deployed tonight, this aspect has never crossed my path, living, as I do, with this problem from day to day. I hope that this aspect will go through tonight with the understanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the whole matter, not only in the context of Northern Ireland, is being looked at.

Mr. McNamara: We are not dealing with an executive decision taken by my right hon. Friend whether to make out an ICO which can put a man behind bars for 28 days, and possibly longer, without trial, depending whether the commissioners are available. We are dealing with a different context. My right hon. Friend, having gone there, is exercising an executive function, and the court is exercising a judicial function under the terms of the statute. For my right hon. Friend to suggest that he should be commenting on judicial functions of the judiciary in Northern Ireland and the way that they take decisions on evidence is regrettable. We have always accepted that he took an executive decision, but he is now saying that this, which is a

matter for the DPP. is a matter in which he cannot intervene and decide what evidence is admissible. My right hon. Friend should not make statements like that.

Mr. Rees: I was making the point that I have to deal with the matter in the context of detention, but it is also in the context of the normal law in Northern Ireland in the same way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I intervene to try to help the Committee? The interpretation of this subsection is, as we understand it, the one that I have given to the Committee. It is clear that there is a good deal of ferment as to whether the reference to specific evidence will mean that in any prosecution it would carry greater weight than any other evidence that might be introduced to prove membership of the IRA. The point was specifically put by my right hon. Friend when he said that if there is a specific reference to this kind of evidence, it will appear to the court to mean that it is either conclusive or prima facie evidence.
I will undertake, before Report, to see whether we can devise a form of words which can be put into the clause which will make it absolutely clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take it out."]—that there is no intention to give extra weight to this kind of evidence rather than to any other kind of evidence which might be admissible. If it proves impossible to do that. I undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible to withdraw the subsection so that we can deal with the matter in a way that commends itself to the Committee.
All I am suggesting is that this approach would at least meet that part of the anxiety of the Committee that relates to a real fear that this kind of evidence might be given undue weight in any prosecution over any other kind of admissible evidence. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will feel that we can now make progress.

Sir M. Havers: It may be best, when one finds the Minister of State buttressed as he is by the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, and knowing as I do that the present Solicitor-General took a strong part in the debate on identical words in Committee a year ago on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, to suggest that instead of the


poor old Minister of State being in this trouble he should be assisted by one of the lawyers flanking him.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understood the Minister of State just now to give an undertaking to the Committee of what he would do on Report.

An Hon. Member: There will not be a Report stage.

Mr. Powell: That is a point I thought worth clearing up. But, since this undertaking has been given to the Committee by the Minister as a ground on which the amendment should be withdrawn, are we to understand that at least one amendment will be made to the Bill in Committee so that there is a Report stage?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: May I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and invite the Attorney-General to give the Committee the benefit of his advice specifically on whether he has come across in various judgments of courts the phrase, "Parliament would not have inserted that provision if it did not intend it to have some meaning"?
We have been told by the Minister of State that this subsection is included for the avoidance of doubt. I do not believe that the subsection is necessary if all it means is that the evidence is admissible. It is, therefore, inevitable that the courts will add a different meaning.
The situation is different when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making a decision in a case that comes before him. He is the only judge in that instance. These cases will be decided by the courts. I am sure the Attorney-General will confirm that courts must attach some weight to subsection (6). We are assured that it has no meaning, that the evidence is admissible anyway and that we do not need the subsection to make it available. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept the feeling of the Committee and withdraw the subsection.

The Attorney-General: We undertake to look at this subsection between now and Report. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked whether there will be a Report stage. I think that there may have to be one because certain amendments are necessary at a later stage of the Bill and will be made

in due course. But that in no way qualifies or alters the undertaking that, in the meantime, we shall be looking at the wording of subsection (6) in the context of both the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the Bill. The wording is the same, and to a large extent it is dealing with a similar situation. Subsection (6) deals with the difficult situation of proving that a person is a member of a proscribed organisation. We will look at the matter before Report, but at this stage I understand the subsection to make it clear that certain pieces of evidence are not conclusive evidence but evidence that a court will accept as tending to show membership of a proscribed organisation.
Different weight would be likely to be given by a court, both in the absence of the subsection and in the presence of it, to different matters which are here set out. For instance, if a person is in possession—my hon. Friend is right to say that that implies some act of control—of a document emanating from an officer of a proscribed organisation, who might not be named as an officer but might be proved to be, the subsection says that that is some evidence to show that the person possessing the document is a member of the organisation.
I may be asked why, in that case, it has been thought necessary to include various other situations in respect of which the subsection provides that those situations are evidence of membership. The answer is that if one did include those situations about which a court might feel that there was some doubt or that the evidence was not strong and left out the others, that would throw doubt on the validity of bringing in evidence those other situations which would be left out of the subsection.
In other words, this is a code of circumstances of similar character each of which is to be regarded by the court as some evidence that the person who possesses the document is a member of the proscribed organisation. It is in that sense a valuable subsection, in the same terms as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. If it were amended or withdrawn, there is a real danger that the equivalent subsection in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act would be placed in doubt so far as its construction was concerned.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] My hon. Friends seem to think that I am putting that forward as the reason for its being there. I am merely putting it forward as one of the possible effects of amending or leaving out the subsection.
1.30 a.m.
I must advise the Committee that this is a useful subsection, but I have said that we will look at it again. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that it is not merely useful but essential for Scotland, because the words "sufficient evidence" bear a somewhat different meaning in Scotland from the meaning they bear in England. If it is accepted that the words are essential for Scotland, we must have this subsection in that context as well as in the context of the English law.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby) rose——

The Attorney-General: In view of that, the Committee would be wrong to exclude this subsection. I hope that the Committee, will accept the assurance which has been given that between now and Report the subsection will be looked at again to see whether either any improvement can be made or it is really necessary, as indeed I believe it to be, but some members of the Committee obviously take a different view.

Sir Michael Havers: I hope that the Attorney-General will accept that I agree with what he has said. He has spoken of considering an amendment and considering any other course. I hope that he will not be discouraged by the fact that in June of last year he voted to remove the identical wording from a clause in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and he was supported by the present Lord Chancellor, the present Solicitor-General and the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that of course that will be one of the considerations that we shall have in mind.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am doing the best I can as a miserable lawyer to understand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, but he appeared to adduce two arguments which

were totally inconsistent. The first was that the subsection is necessary to make it clear that the documents are evidence. In other words, the documents are evidence already and this subsection merely makes it clear. The second argument was that different weight is given to the evidence if it is in than when it is not in. It will be given such weight as the court thinks fit if the court comes to consider it at such time as the court comes to consider it, which it probably never will.
My right hon. and learned Friend then said that the matter will be considered before Report, but as he cannot at this stage even guarantee that there will be a Report stage there is only one answer, and that is for the subsection to be deleted.

Mr. Brittan: I was seeking to intervene to ask the Attorney-General to clarify his observations, but as he would not give way to me I must do it in this form.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said something which seemed to me to be entirely inconsistent with everything that was said before by other right hon. and hon. Members. He used the word "code". He said that the various possibilities had to be included in the clause, and not merely the possibility of a document emanating or purporting to emanate from a proscribed organisation, in order that there should be a code.
If that means what it is normally understood to mean, it means that the only way of proving membership of the IRA or any other proscribed organisation will be by reference to the matters specified in the subsection. If it does not mean that, it means that the use of "code" is inappropriate. That, too, requires clarification before it is accepted.

The Attorney-General: I had intended to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) rose and I gave way to him. I referred to a code of circumstances of a similar kind. It is true that there may be proof of somebody marching with the IRA, which would be totally different. Here we are dealing with the question of possession of a document, and the subsection seeks to set out the circumstances in which possession of a document may be used in evidence against a person who is alleged to be a member of a proscribed


organisation. It is not a question of parts of it being unnecessary. The whole point, as I understand it, is that if one part of it or more than one part were left out and other parts were put in doubts would be cast upon whether a situation then excluded from the clause was one which could be used for the purposes of evidence.

Mr. John Meadelson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General now accept that, quite apart from the point made from the Opposition Front Bench about previous views held, it has now clearly emerged that those views and doubts were based upon similar considerations to those expressed this evening? Will he also accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, trying to help the debate, has shown up a clear distinction between the problems he has to face and the legislation that is now before us in that he has to make executive decisions and we have to give instructions to the whole legal process of the country?
Has it not also clearly emerged that, without the subsection which the amendment seeks to delete, if evidence was found in the possession of a suspected person—correspondence, letters or notes which, in addition to other things, directly related to a criminal case—the court would take note of that correspondence? Therefore, the process of the law would not be deprived of such evidence where it was supplementary to other suspicions and other grounds for legal action.
In view of that, and bearing in mind that there is a great deal of opinion in support of this interpretation, would it not strengthen the whole purpose of the Bill and my right hon. Friend's intentions to accept the amendment?

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Many of us would like to make clear that we are not asking for the subsection to be taken away and looked at by anybody. We are asking for it to be deleted. It is already being looked at now by the Committee, and with some difficulty.
I was impressed at the way the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was peppered with the phrase "as I understand it". That seems to be a qualification. But how will

other people understand it? It is clear from what has been said by hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee that evidence of the kind described in the clause is evidence just the same with or without this subsection. That is crystal clear even to the slowest of us.
We have had a list of the certain kinds of evidence which could be accepted. An example is where someone says that he is a member of the IRA. That would be perfect, of course. But it also includes demonstrating, marching or addressing a meeting. That worries me when I think of the number of meetings I attend without being a member of the organisation holding the meeting.
There is one common characteristic. They are active pieces of evidence. The very item which is singled out for special attention is a passive kind of evidence, where the person is a recipient of something. He is not doing something—marching, demonstrating, singing—but just receiving something, possibly unwillingly. Why single out this kind of thing and give it such superior weight? If that is not the case, why not bow to the fears of of my hon. Friends and take the subsection out? If it is not effective, why are we sitting here for hour after hour? If it is necessary, what does it do? If it does not make it better evidence than other kinds of evidence, what docs it do?
The Attorney-General says that it is useful. For what? That is the very thing which has not been established by all the words that have been spoken. I could think of a few things for which it could be useful. It could be useful to enable someone of malicious intent to send a letter or document to someone called not "S. Silkin, Esq." but someone called "O'Hara", "O'Higgins" or "O'Dowde" who has perhaps expressed certain legitimate criticism of Government policy in relation to Northern Ireland. What is to stop such a person who is uneasy about policy in Northern Ireland from being the unwilling, unwitting, passive recipient of something of this nature?
We have been told about the Gardiner Committee looking at things that are not relevant to this debate. We have been promised that Ministers will take this away and look at it. We have looked at it. We do not know what "purporting to emanate" means and whether it has


sinister overtones. We are told that it is useful, but we do not know for what. We are told that it makes it clear, that it is evidence but not superior evidence, and it would be evidence anyway. If my right hon. and hon. Friends want to get this Bill, if they want to make progress, I would seriously urge them to withdraw this subsection.

Mr. Lawrence: The Committee has been treated with a little less than proper candour by the lawyers on the Government Front Bench. What the lawyer means by "possession" is different from what the ordinary layman means by that word. Surely the purpose of the subsection is to avoid what would otherwise be necessary in a court of law; namely, the necessity to prove a knowledge that the article concerned was in the custody or control, or on the premises of, the accused person. That is why the subsection has been drafted, so that it is not necessary to prove guilt, to establish that which it is most difficult to establish: namely, guilty knowledge of the article. That is what this is all about. If the Government Front Bench lawyers had been candid enough to tell us perhaps this matter might have been settled a long time ago. It seems that there are many Labour hon. Members who do not want this subsection because it takes away the necessity of proving guilty knowledge.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. William Craig: Earlier yesterday we had a sense of urgency in dealing with this grave emergency. We have witnessed much head-scratching to prove that the clause is of some value to the Bill. We have also witnessed some head-scratching to prove that the clause is harmful and could cause hardship. The only safe conclusion we can safely draw is that there has been much head-scratching. On the other hand, we have some experience of the clause in Northern Ireland, where it has been enacted. The Secretary of State rightly reminded us of that.
It can fairly be said that the clause has not proved to be of much value in Northern Ireland. It can also be said with certainty that it has not done any harm or caused any hardship. In this situation of great urgency, is there any real reason for not accepting this measure and passing on to something else?

Mr. George Cunningham: We are considering this serious Bill against a serious background in which a lot of people lost their lives and a lot more people were maimed. Whatever the disagreements, we owe it to ourselves and to the country to conduct ourselves with a degree of decorum.
The Government Front Bench has hardly distinguished itself in presenting the case for the subsection. I suspect that there is, if not a better case, at least a clearer case than that which has been presented. We owe it to the country not lightly to brush aside anything which might conceivably be of assistance. We have been given the assurance that there will be a Report stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understood the Attorney-General to say that in the Government's view certain amendments were required. We all know in practice that if the Government want some amendments one at least will be carried and that there will be a Report stage. That is how I understood the situation.
If we are to have a Report stage the deletion of this provision could be effected on Report as well as now. I suggest that we pass on and that on Report the Attorney-General reads out the best possible case that can be put for the subsection. It is always best for Ministers to start by reading a brief. On the basis of the best possible case that can be presented, the House could then decide whether to retain the subsection or to get rid of it. That course would allow us to pass on to other much more serious parts of the Bill. Whatever else can be said about the clause, the difference between having it in and not having it in is not great when considered in terms of civil liberties. It is important but it is narrow. Let us move on to the other amendments and look at this again on Report.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I very much agree with the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). The Committee is bound to come under strain as time goes on, and it is natural that we should get a little light-hearted, although we are serious about this matter. The Bill arises out of very serious circumstances indeed.
We have decided to take these measures for we regard them as being vitally necessary in view of the threat with which the country is at present faced. I am not in the least anxious to have anything in the Bill that is unnecessary or that in any way impinges on civil liberties. I am, however, advised both by the Attorney-General and by the Lord Advocate—and there are special Scottish problems—that the subsection is necessary. Therefore, I am not at this stage, or indeed at any stage, prepared lightly to abandon something which may be of vital importance for the effective working of the difficult decision about proscription.
My hon. Friends have made a substantial case, but I ask them to let the Committee proceed and allow the subsection to remain in the Bill. We will consider most urgently whether this provision is necessary. Provided that we can make progress—and we must get this Bill at this sitting, however protracted it is, for there will be grave difficulties in the country outside if we fail to do that—I intend to have a look at the matter. Since there are three small Government drafting amendments to be made, there will in the normal way be a Report stage. At that stage if we are not absolutely convinced that the provision is necessary, we will ourselves drop the subsection. If hon. Members, having heard that we still think it to be necessary, remain unconvinced by the reasons we give it will be open for any hon. Member to divide against it at that stage. I think that would be the proper way in which to proceed. I hope my hon. Friends will accept what I have said.

Mr. Sedgemore: On the strict understanding that this matter will come back on Report, having had serious consideration as to whether the subsection is necessary, not merely for Scotland but for England, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 25, after "section", insert "only".

The Chairman: I understand that it will be convenient with this amendment to take also Amendments No. 9, in line 26, leave out from "organisation" to "a"

in line 27, and insert "before it was", and No. 10, in line 27, leave out from "organisation" to end of line 32.

Mr. Powell: These three amendments together greatly simplify, and I believe to an important extent improve, this subsection. I have two advantages in moving these amendments. The first is the knowledge that it is possible for amendments, if justified, still to be made to the Bill, and the second is that, unlike the previous subsection, subsection (7) does not occur in the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
I take it that the purpose of subsection (7) is to ensure that no retrospective offence is created. I imagine that that would be an agreed object: that it would be unreasonable for it to be a criminal offence to have belonged to an organisation when it had not yet been proscribed.
The way in which that is done in the subsection as it stands presents at least two practical difficulties. As subsection (7) is drafted, it turns upon the concept of becoming a member of the organisation, and of becoming it in so specific and definite a way that the becoming can be dated. I understand that it is unusual, to put it mildly, for those who join the IRA to fill up a form and to receive a card and for the transaction to be dated and recorded. There seem, therefore, to be great objections to a subsection which depends upon membership which is a formal act and an act to which a precise date can be assigned.
In addition to that, as the clause stands it appears that a person charged with belonging to the proscribed organisation could say, "I am not guilty, because it is true that I belong to it, and I belong to it still; I have belonged to it since before it was proscribed. But I am not taking any active part in its proceedings."
In relation to an organisation such as the IRA, it seems extraordinary that a person should be able to clear himself in that way; that it should be possible for a person to admit to being still a member of the proscribed organisation, having been such a member for some time, and to evade the offence merely by the assertion and the demonstration—but one does not know how such a negative could be demonstrated—that he is no longer active in it. Indeed, that second condition contradicts the very


sense of the clause as a whole, which is to make membership of the proscribed organisation in itself the offence.
As it stands, therefore, I would have thought that the subsection does not conveniently carry out the presumed object of avoiding a retrospective offence being created. These three amendments are thus put down to produce a much simpler and, I apprehend, effective result. With the three amendments, the subsection would run:
A person belonging to a proscribed organisation shall not be guilty of an offence under this section only by reason of belonging to the organisation before it was proscribed.
That seems to me to be a perfectly simple and clear way of ensuring that there is no retrospection without running into the difficulties of accepting a current membership of the proscribed association as guiltless and of having to verify the date of a transaction which in practice rarely, if ever, takes place.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I understood that we were taking Amendment No. 11——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is a separate amendment.

Mr. Lyon: The description by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) of the effect of the clause is correct. A person alleged to be a member of a proscribed organisation can raise the defence that he was a member before it became proscribed and that he has taken no part in any of its activities since it was proscribed. That is rather more than saying that he has not taken an active part.
Someone found in possession of a current card indicating membership of a proscribed organisation could say that he joined at the time when it was not proscribed and has taken no active part since proscription. The burden will be upon him, and in that sense it is an additional burden. He can discharge it by such evidence as he can produce to show that he has taken no part in the activities. It would seem unfair to say that a man in those circumstances should be guilty of an offence which on indictment might lead to a sentence of five years' imprisonment. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.
The amendment is an ingenious attempt to overcome the difficulties over a dormant member who nevertheless may still have sympathies with the IRA, but it does not catch the case where the man is guiltless of any continuing intention to ally himself with the IRA and is, therefore, not guilty of an offence after the introduction of the measure.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is possible for him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Powell: I must admit that I am still considerably puzzled. I had not realised that the intention was that current membership of a proscribed organisation was not to be an offence provided it was what the Minister describes as "dormant". The general purpose of the clause, which is to avoid the absurdity and contradiction of membership of a proscribed organisation, of an organisation which is concerned in acts of terrorism, being lawful, and of persons openly belonging to it, would not seem to me to be met if large numbers remained members of that organisation upon the profession of being dormant. There is also the great difficulty of bringing home either positively or negatively the precise activities in which they may or may not be currently engaged.

Mr. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the burden would be upon the accused to show that he had taken no part in the activities. Therefore, if he were found to have a current card he would have to show that. It would not be for the prosecution to try to show it.

Mr. Powell: In consideration of the fact that the effect of the subsection appears to be, from the Minister's statement, to put the onus of proof upon the accused, where the accused was a member since before the organisation was proscribed, and as that appears to strengthen the means of bringing home any real offence in the sense intended by the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Craig: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 32, at end add:
'(8) Where a member of a police force of a rank not lower than the rank of a superintendent gives evidence that he has reasonable


grounds for believing that a person belongs to a proscribed organisation, it shall lie on that person to prove that he does not so belong or alternatively has ceased so to belong'.
I move the amendment with the memory of the debate on the value of documents as evidence fresh in our minds and with the problems raised by the last amendment even more fresh in our minds.
We are now coming to the teeth of the Bill. It is easy to proscribe an organisation but very difficult to prove membership of a proscribed organisation. Certainly we in Northern Ireland have not been very successful in this respect, and it will be much more difficult if one has to prove not only membership but that the membership is active, or, rather, that the accused person must show that his membership is not active. One can produce as many documents as one likes; it will not help very much.
It is not often that I refer anyone to the Irish Republic for examples. There are many things which are good in the Irish Republic. No one would dispute that "Guinness is good for you". I do not think anyone should dispute that, when it comes to proscribing organisations, the law of the Irish Republic is far superior to that to be found anywhere else. Whatever criticisms we may have about the efficiency of the Eire authorities, they have in custody far more members of proscribed organisations than we have ever had in any part of the United Kingdom, because they have a law similar to what is suggested in this amendment.
Under the amendment a senior police officer not below the rank of superintendent would go to court and state that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person was a member of a proscribed organisation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that in the Irish Republic an officer who was not below the rank of chief superintendent would give the evidence? Is there any reason to change the practice for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Craig: It is correct that it would be a chief superintendent in the Irish Republic. [Interruption.] An hon. Member on the Government side says that

an English superintendent is worth two chief superintendents in the Irish Republic. My amendment concerns only superintendents. Theirs is a sufficiently responsible post. It is an operational post. A superintendent would be able to speak from practical knowledge. That is the test. We propose to ask a responsible person with first-hand knowledge to state to the court that such-and-such a person is believed to be a member of an illegal organisation. It would then be up to the accused person to satisfy the court that he was not a member, or, as the Minister of State says, that he was not an active member.
Without an amendment of this nature, I do not think that the Bill will succeed in the task which has been set for it to do. I urgently ask the Committee to give favourable consideration to the amendment.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) that we could follow the law of Eire in many respects in dealing with members of the IRA. The Eire authorities refuse to allow members of the IRA to be interviewed on television or radio.
The amendment seeks to adopt the law of the Irish Republic, which has as much experience of the IRA as we have in Northern Ireland. During the Second Reading debate it was said that the IRA was born in 1968 and 1969 in Northern Ireland, but it has been in existence for many years, going back to the old Fenian movement, and it fought a bitter and vicious campaign after the establishment of the Irish Free State. Since 1920 the Irish Free State has suffered many deaths as a consequence of the IRA and has meted out severe punishment to its members. The United Kingdom might learn much from the suffering of the Irish Free State.
I can see no way of phasing out internment other than by accepting the amendment, which would put the onus on a person to prove that he was not a member of the IRA. A person can be imprisoned rather than detained if he cannot satisfy the court that he is not a member of the IRA. We know from the Press, television and radio that there is much trouble about internment. The Committee would help the cause of peace and remove the


menace of IRA terrorists from the land by accepting the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would help to bring internment to an end, but the clause which it is sought to amend is in Part 1 of the Bill, which does not apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: I said that it might help to phase out internment. I did not say it would bring internment to an end.

Mr. McNamara: But it does not apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: I appreciate that the clause does not apply to Northern Ireland. The complaint of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that part of the Bill applies to Great Britain and part to the United Kingdom. All I am saying is that if the amendment is accepted the law in Northern Ireland can later be changed to bring it into line with the law in Great Britain.

Mr. Greville Janner: The amendment could have serious consequences if it were passed. The clause provides for six months' imprisonment on summary conviction and five years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment. To shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused is a crucial step to be taken only if there is no other way of achieving a satisfactory and fair result.
It is proposed that the burden of proof should be shifted if a member of a police force of a rank not lower than that of a superintendent proved that he had reasonable grounds for believing that a person belonged to a proscribed organisation and also if he gave evidence that he had reasonable grounds for so believing. He does not even have to satisfy the court of the reasonableness of his ground. It is enough if he gives evidence of it.
2.15 a.m.
The object of the Bill is to convict the guilty, not to put in dire peril those who are innocent. This amendment deserves careful consideration because it has been put forward in the way it has and because it proposes a measure used in Eire. Having considered it, however, and the way it is phrased, I find that it is a most improper and dangerous way of putting innocent people in grave peril by shifting the burden of proof where it is not neces-

sary so to do in order to achieve justice and the object of the Bill.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is quite correct. If we were to accede to the amendment, we would go a great deal further than the hotly-disputed provision we were discussing less than an hour ago. We would be saying not that a court could consider evidence which came out of the mouth of a police officer as to his reasonable suspicions—that would not be as cogent as an admissible piece of documentary evidence which seemed to be addressed to the accused as indicative of membership of the IRA—but that it could consider prima facie evidence in the precise form which we debated earlier. It would throw the burden of proof on to the defence.
This would be a much more Draconian measure than the matter which received such earnest debate a little earlier. It is something that the Government could not accept in the light of our commitment to take powers which were wide enough to cover the danger but restricted enough to preserve civil liberty.
I am reinforced in that view because the Diplock Commission, when it considered what emergency powers were necessary in Northern Ireland, considered this power, which exists in the Republic, and it did so in an atmosphere in Northern Ireland where it is much more difficult to get convictions, certainly before juries, than it is in this country, where there is not equal pressure upon jurors.
The Diplock Commission said that it could not regard this as an acceptable measure even in Northern Ireland terms. For this reason we could not consider it necessary to have this quite terrifying change in our criminal law for the kind of danger we face in relation to the IRA.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the law in the Republic, similar to that proposed in the amendment, is terrifying? Is he saying that in its method of dealing with the IRA, where it is not faced with the sort of murders we face here, the Republic is unduly restricting the personal liberties of the people in an emergency situation?
We are considering this Bill because of the atrocity in Birmingham and against


the background of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and other incidents in Great Britain. We are dealing with a very serious threat to the safety of the people of this kingdom. Surely in this emergency, when we are dealing with a measure which is meant only to be temporary, we should adopt the clause so that it will be possible to deal effectively with the IRA. Members of the IRA do not go around showing that they are members. But if they are challenged, just as happens in the Irish Republic, they find it very difficult to deny their membership or to disprove what the chief superintendent puts forward in evidence to a judge sitting without a jury.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I can understand the reservations of the Minister and his hon. Friends about certain aspects of this legislation, and it is fair to say that their repugnance is felt by everyone on the Opposition benches. We only regret that it is necessary.
I intervene only to point out that the. Minister may not have seen a statement made yesterday by a prominent member of the Eire Government. The Minister for External Affairs is reported to have said that he liked the fact that the British Government were gradually drawing nearer to the Republic's very effective anti-terrorist laws.
Not so long ago the Home Secretary said that he hoped to be in consultation with the authorities in Dublin. The implication was that he would be applying pressure to convince them to take much more effective measures. Presumably he was thinking in terms of their applying the law which they already possess. But would not Her Majesty's Government be in a much stronger position when they approached the Government of the Irish Republic if they were able to say, "We are tightening our laws. We are sacrificing many of the jealously guarded rights of British citizens to enable us to combine to meet this terrorist threat"?
Until Her Majesty's Government brace themselves to take that action they will be in a relatively weak position in their approaches to the Government in Dublin.

Mr. Mayhew: Whether or not it is the law in the South of Ireland, it will make very bad law if we enact this

amendment. It turns upon a superintendent giving evidence that he has reasonable grounds for believing, and so on. But that evidence must be open to cross-examination, and that cross-examination may be so effective that it destroys that evidence. None the less, the burden of proof will still be transferred to the person to prove that he does not belong, and that will make very bad law.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is very difficult for any Government to convict those who are proscribed, and the Government here will find that in the vast majority of cases proscription is not successful.
In Northern Ireland various people have been proscribed. I have tabled Questions in this House asking why so many members of this or that organisation have even been charged with being members. In a great many cases of proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland no member has either been charged in the courts or found guilty of being a member. When a case comes to court, it is very difficult to fasten upon the accused man membership of a particular organisation. What my right hon. and hon. Friends are trying to impress on the Committee is that this matter has been successful in the Republic of Ireland only when such evidence has been accepted.
The provisions that we are proposing to pass this evening and many of the points that have been discussed are repugnant to all of us. The Minister of State said that this proposal would be terrifying. It is equally terrifying that a document, which would not even be authentic but would simply purport to come from a terrorist organisation, can be put in as evidence. It is no use saying that one thing is terrifying and another is not All these things would terrify people.
I suggest that it would be very difficult to get the case against any IRA man fastened unless we had a provision in the Bill similar to the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). That is a matter that the Committee should consider.
I submit that, taking the whole Bill, it is bad law. The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) said that this was bad law. None of us likes what is happening. But are we going to succeed in doing what


the Bill sets out to do? I think that the Government should look carefully at what has happened in Southern Ireland and in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could tell the Committee how many IRA men have been proved in the courts to be members of that proscribed organisation. There is great difficulty here and the Government must face this difficulty.

Mr. Stainton: I am sure that all hon. Members who have reflected on Amendment No. 11 must be deeply concerned about its implications. I am terrified at the prospect of the pointing finger of a superintendent of police. Equally, I am impressed by what Ulster Members have told us about the apparent effectiveness of parallel measures in Eire. However, that conflicts with reports in the Press and on television about the activities of terrorists slipping over the border or populating numerous towns and villages in the northern parts of Eire. It may be that the arrests have been voluminous, but they have not been wholly effective in Eire.
We are frequently urged by Ulster Members that representations to the Eire Government should be more severe. I take heed of what is said by Ulster Members. They come here with a background, alas, of very bitter experience of which we should take heed. They have been through the mill and are still there.
I certainly cannot support the amendment. That is not because the lead for which I look to the Government has not been forthcoming but because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) pointed out, the drafting is defective. If the superintendent, or whoever it be, is to to give evidence, that evidence would be susceptible to cross-examination. This type of subsection would make sense only by substituting for the words "gives evidence" something like "states", perhaps adding "without malice" or words to that effect, but "states" would be the operative word as opposed to "gives evidence" if we wish to be carried along with the purport of the amendment.
I do not like the smell of this at all. On the other hand, I am impelled by the thoughts from Ulster Members. I look to the Government. I shall resist the amendment on the grounds of my basic

feelings and motivations on the assurances given by the Government, but the onus is on them.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: It is indicative of the thinking of Unionist Members that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) should have been chosen to move the amendment. I, too, represent a Northern Ireland constituency. I am bitterly opposed to the amendment, and I am certain that it will be rejected by the Government.
Unionist Members are rather schizophrenic in their approach to the activities of the Government of the Republic. Time and again during these debates we hear vicious and completely unwarranted attacks by Unionist Members on the alleged inactivity of the Government of the Republic in some matter or other. I am sure that the Government of the Republic will be amused when they read tomorrow morning's report of the debate and find that they have been complimented by some Unionists because of the stand they have taken over the detention of members of terrorist organisations.
I remember the debates in this House and in Northern Ireland on the even more Draconian Special Powers Act, when so much faith was placed in the hands of the police for the operation of that measure. Even now certain Members who represent the Unionist point of view have lodged strong objections to internment and detention. Time and again I have heard the hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) criticise internment in Northern Ireland. I have heard him criticise how the courts are held in relation to Long Kesh. I have heard him criticise members of the Special Branch who sit behind a curtain and swear that someone is a member of such-and-such an illegal organisation.
That is what the police are doing now. Policemen not of the rank of superintendent, chief superintendent or assistant chief constable are supplying my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with information that people are members of illegal organisations, and on that information on far too many occasions my right hon. Friend has signed an "into custody" order and the person has been incarcerated in an internment camp. That is happening now on evidence given by the


police force in Northern Ireland. The people of this country would be embarking on a dangerous road if they have similar powers to the police force here. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee can see what is happening in Northern Ireland, and I do not want it to happen here.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It should be made clear that there is a difference between the content of the amendment and the commissioner's hearing. I am opposed to an anonymous police officer standing behind a curtain and giving evidence, and I have exposed this practice in the House before today. But that is not what we are suggesting, and I hope that the Committee will not be deceived by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
We are saying that the superintendent should come into open court and give his evidence in public. His rank will be known, and he will be known. When he has given his evidence, the onus of proof will revert to the person charged. This is, of course, a serious matter. I am not a lawyer, but lawyers in the House know that under some laws the onus of proof is upon the person charged. It would be up to the person charged to rebut what the officer said. He would have an opportunity to do that, as happens in the South of Ireland.
I am no advocate of the Republic. My sad reflection is that far too many IRA men are not brought to the Central Criminal Court in Dublin and charged with being members of the IRA. Too few of them are brought there. However, this court has been effective in proving the membership of a proscribed organisation.
If Parliament wants the Bill when enacted to work, there must be some way whereby these men can be brought before the courts with the possibility of evidence being presented to the courts to prove that they were members of a proscribed organisation.
I believe that the whole Bill is bad. I do not like it. We are dealing with a problem that is before us. We would do far better to look at it in a practical manner to see what can be done.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: Before I put the Question on the clause, I remind the Com-

mittee that we have been four and a half hours discussing it. This might be borne in mind if any hon. Member wishes to speak on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

DISPLAY OF SUPPORT IN PUBLIC FOR A PROSCRIBED ORGANISATION

Mr. Craig: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we are to discuss also the following:

No. 13, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one year'.

No. 14, in page 2, line 45, leave out '£200' and insert '£400'.

No. 15, in page 2, line 45, leave out '£400' and insert '£1,000'.

Mr. Craig: There is always difficulty about arriving at the right penalty. The amendments are based on the simple thinking that it is good sense to keep the penalties here and in Northern Ireland at the same level. That is the only merit of the amendments. The period of imprisonment and the fines are realistic and will act as a deterrent. For the sake of uniformity throughout the United Kingdom I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends have much the same purpose as was expressed by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). It seems that the punishment is drawn from, if anywhere, the Public Order Act 1936. We believe that the proper precedent is the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 which has exactly the provision which we have written into the amendments in our names.
We do not base our case simply on legal precedent. It is also worth mentioning that in the past we have seen in cities like Birmingham marches, demonstrations and displays of men and women who have been supporters of the IRA. In the past such displays have


caused offence. It is clear that if they were to take place now they would cause total outrage.
It is therefore important that we in this Parliament show our disapproval and condemnation of such possible acts and display. It is important that the punishments under the Bill should be realistic and to some extent should deter people from display. We do not believe that a maximum sentence of three months, which in most normal circumstances means two months served in prison, is sufficient. We would prefer a more realistic sentence, and we believe that that would be a maximum sentence of six months.

Mr. Cormack: Since there are two amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I must say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I would not wish to insist on the sentences proposed in my amendments. I hope that the Committee will accept the other amendments.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I do not wish to oppose the amendment, but it is worth pointing out that if carried it would permit a defendant to claim the right of trial by jury since it would increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment to six months. It might be better that the offence should be restricted to summary trial alone for practical and other reasons. That might be of greater assistance to the police than that a defendant came before a jury. I wonder whether my hon. Friends have considered these implications.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The object of the clause is to try to eradicate any doubts that might exist about the section of the Public Order Act concerning the wearing of a uniform which have caused some inhibition concerning taking of proceedings under that section. Although a recent prosecution was successful, there has always been doubt as to what constituted a uniform. The clause is designed to make clear what might be unacceptable if it was done for the purpose of arousing reasonable apprehension that a person was a member of a pro-

scribed organisation. It is, therefore, to the Public Order Act that we have looked on the question of penalties. The penalties in the Bill reflect those in the Act—three months' imprisonment or a fine of £50. We have taken account of inflation in monetary terms and provided for three months' imprisonment and a fine of £200.
The proper maximum penalty for any new offence is always a question of judgment. But we must recognise that if a person could be convicted under the clause there might at any rate be some evidence which would enable him to be convicted under the earlier clause. There the penalties are very much more severe. So it is not the only action that the police can take.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is right in saying that if any of the amendments were carried it would give the right of trial by jury in a case of this nature. Although that would not be reprehensible in itself because it would be an extension of the civil rights of the accused, it would give an opportunity for the accused to make his declarations in court in a way which might be even more offensive than the kind of conduct which is thought to be so reprehensible as to justify the clause in any case. There are, therefore, dangers in that, although I do not put them very high. I should have thought that if a person was an active member of the IRA so that he was taking part in marches it might be possible to prosecute him under the earlier clause.

Amendment negatived.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 6, leave out from first 'have' to 'access'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we shall also take Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 6, after 'whether', insert:
'permitted or not and whether'.

Mr. Stainton: My concern in moving the amendment is to clarify, in the situation where there are displays in public in support of a proscribed organisation, what constitutes a "public place". It is not evident from the wording of the subsection that a private churchyard, for example, if there be such a thing, or the campus of a university, would be covered


adequately. I have sought to delete the words
or are permitted to have
in line 6 so that the line would read
The public have access whether permitted or not and whether on payment or otherwise.
It does not make it completely clear for example, what would happen if a display were to take place in someone's front garden, permitted or not, or in a church yard where a volley of shots was fired during a funeral ceremony. That situation would not appear to be covered by the Bill and I suggest that the amendment would make the clause more effective.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I can see the point of the amendment. As I understand the hon. Member, he is seeking to create the situation in which it would be permissible to charge that an offence occurred in a public place if the public had access to that place in normal circumstances but when it was closed or when the permission had been withdrawn so that the demonstration was conducted by trespassers. That would be the effect of the proposed wording, but I think that the hon. Member's concern is largely met by the clause. A church would be a public place since the public would normally have access to it and would be permitted access to it.

Mr. Stainton: What about a private crematorium?

Mr. Lyon: A private crematorium is defined almost by the use of the adjective. A private crematorium to which the public did not have access, even on payment, and where access was restricted to a certain limited number of the public would perhaps not be a public place.
It would be a matter of nice judgment for the court whether the public had access in such circumstances. When the hon. Member talks about a private garden where a demonstration might take place, the answer is that it would not and could not be a public place by any definition put into legislation that I know of. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that might cause offence if it were done in this way. It would be going further than any legislation on the subject has ever gone to say that a demonstration within a private area, even if the area were visible from

the road—say, one's front bedroom window—would constitute an offence of this kind.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the subsection as drafted covers most of his concern——

Mr. Stainton: But not all.

Mr. Lyon: But that which it does not cover would not be dealt with by his amendment.

Mr. Stainton: What about the university campus?

Mr. Lyon: That would probably be a public place if the public had access to it, as the public does in most circumstances. It would depend upon the facts. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would not cover the private garden situation. It would be going further than I want to go to say that we ought to cover that kind of area.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: This is probably the point to raise a matter of great administrative importance. I am glad that both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are present because this matter concerns both equally. By Clause 1 and Clause 2, which we are now adding to the Bill, the law in Great Britain and the law in Northern Ireland is for the first time being virtually assimulated. There are still slight variations, some of which have concerned the Committee in previous amendments.
Broadly speaking, and quite deliberately, we have made the law on proscribed organisations, on public demonstrations and on belonging to such organisations the same throughout the United Kingdom. It would, I think, be accepted by all that where a law applies uniformly to the whole of the kingdom it should be administered on similar lines and principles and the enforcement should be broadly similar wherever the law is broken from one country to the other.
Hitherto this problem has not arisen in the same form since this was the law only in Northern Ireland. It will now be the law in the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, both in its administration in Great Britain, where it is new,


and in its administration henceforward in Northern Ireland great importance will attach to uniformity. That will present grave decisions and serious administrative problems, not least in Northern Ireland. Those have to be faced and they will be easier to face if they are faced from the outset. I hope that before we part from the clause we shall receive, on behalf of the Government, an indication that it is their serious purpose to aim at uniformity of enforcement and administration of the law as embodied in Part I of this measure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right in saying that there is a closer approximation than hitherto between the law in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is not an exact coincidence. It is clear that there are certain differences between the conditions in Northern Ireland and those prevailing in Great Britain. We take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is our desire to see peaceful conditions restored in both parts of the United Kingdom. In so far as joint application of the law can help, we shall endeavour to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

ORDERS TO PREVENT TERRORISM

Mr. Kilfedder: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'terrorism' to 'designed' in line 13.

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments:

No. 19, in page 3, line 13, leave out from 'elsewhere' to end of line 14.

No. 20, in page 3, line 14, leave out 'with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Kilfedder: We now move to Part II of the Bill, to the part which refers to Great Britain as distinct from the United Kingdom. This is something to which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends take strong exception. I think

that I am right in saying that the majority of the people in the Province feel that this is an insult to them, having for six long years suffered terrorism in their part of the United Kingdom.
We heard earlier on Second Reading the view expressed by some Labour hon. Members that the House is taking panic measures as a result of the Birmingham atrocity. Perhaps they are right, perhaps that atrocity precipitated the Bill but we in Northern Ireland have experienced IRA terrorism since 1968. It is a grievous blow to the law-abiding majority of Protestants and Roman Catholics that Parts II and III should make such a radical change. It is offensive to Ulster citizens to have enshrined in legislation for the first time, no matter how temporary it may be—I know that the Secretary of State has said that it may last for six months or for longer—that citizens of the United Kingdom may be deported from one part of the United Kingdom to another—namely, Northern Ireland. That is why we hope that the Committee will accept the amendment which would delete these words:
(whether in Great Britain or elsewhere)".
I notice that the Explanatory Memorandum says:
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to prevent acts of terrorism, wherever committed …".
I believe that it would improve this measure if we deleted the words specified in the amendment and make it general as in the Explanatory Memorandum. I hope that the Committee will agree. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is widely respected for his views. I regret that in drafting this measure he has found it necessary to make this disturbing distinction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The presumption that he has made is that in one part of the United Kingdom he can erect a cordon sanitaire to protect it from what he regards as the infection of violence from Northern Ireland.
We are going right back to the days of the Dublin pale. The right hon. Gentleman has turned Great Britain into a pale. Those who live outside the pale, in the United Kingdom outside Great Britain, that is to say in Northern Ireland, have a status of citizenship less than that enjoyed by those living in Great Britain.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that in the past there have been ways in which a distinction has been drawn between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although not in terms of deportation or exclusion? I am thinking of the provision that existed at one time whereby to take a job in Northern Ireland a man from the Republic or from Great Britain needed to have the approval of Belfast. Although that is not the same distinction as drawn here, it is not an unprecedented measure to distinguish between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in this category.

Mr. Kilfedder: I have always respected the views of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), but I do not accept this argument. He will understand that due to high unemployment in Northern Ireland it was necessary to prevent people taking up jobs which were required for people living in Northern Ireland. However, it is an unacceptable innovation to restrict citizenship in the way that is envisaged in the Bill. It has always been my understanding that one cannot have different degrees of citizenship and that citizens of the United Kingdom cannot be deported from one part of the United Kingdom to another. The proposed change is foreign and alien to all constitutional law.

Mr. Cunningham: That is not true. The entity of which the hon. Gentleman and I are citizens is the United Kingdom and Colonies. However, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies belonging to, say, Hong Kong does not have free right of movement within the international entity which is the United Kingdom and Colonies and which embraces the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.

Mr. Kilfedder: Any piece of legislation that comes before Parliament is always described as applying to the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the entity. We are not talking about Hong Kong.
On the question of the making of expulsion orders in respect of citizens who have come from the Irish Republic, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the Irish Republic will take them—remem-

bering that the Ugandan Asians were not allowed to come into Great Britain without permits, despite the fact that they were British citizens?
It is wrong to use Northern Ireland as a dumping ground for persons who are believed to be engaged in terrorism in Great Britain. The alarming fact is, in respect of persons engaged in terrorism in Great Britain where there is not clear evidence to sustain a conviction, and they are deported to Ulster, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not legally in a position to intern them. Therefore, they will go back to Northern Ireland to wage war and add to the number of terrorists already there and to make a dangerous situation far worse. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am a little doubtful as to how it would be most for the convenience of the Committee for me to deal with this amendment in relation to certain others which follow. I quite understand that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and probably some of his right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to make points of the sort he has made on Part II of the Bill and on amendments to it.
You clearly thought, Mr. Thomas, that the hon. Member was fully in order in saying what he said on the amendment, although it seemed to me more likely that other hon. Members might wish to make comments of that nature on Amendments Nos. 22 to 25, 32, 38, 46 and 53. If that is the case, I shall confine myself fairly narrowly on this amendment and deal with matters a little more widely when we reach the latter point. I gather that that will be for the convenience of the Committee. Therefore, if the hon. Member will acquit me of discourtesy, I shall not deal with those matters at all widely at this point.
I do not think that the deletion of the words which the hon. Member proposes in the amendment would particularly effectively have the effect which I would not wish to see but which he would wish to see. The reason for the inclusion of the words
whether in Great Britain or elsewhere
in the Bill as it stands is that it might be necessary, say, to deal with Irish terrorists who send letter bombs overseas


or plan terrorist attacks against British installations abroad. That does not mean that acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland are not grounds for making an exclusion order. This, however, is one of the points which might be dealt with by an adaptation which I or my right hon. and learned Friend will explain under Clause 6(3). Therefore, I do not think the acceptance of the amendment would have the broad effect which is desired to be achieved by the larger list of amendments to which we will come later.
I understand that we are taking also Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. In the interesting debate which we had—it now seems a great number of hours ago—on the early part of Clause 1 when we referred fairly freely to the effect of this on Clause 3 as well as on Clause 1—the effect of confining this to matters relating to Northern Ireland rather than taking it in relation to terrorism more widely—whether or not we reached agreement, we reached a decision on it. I hope, therefore, that we might treat those two amendments as having been covered by the previous debate.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
I move the amendment for the purpose of obtaining clarification. The exclusion orders which arise under this part of the Bill will apply to two classes of person. As I understand the clause, subsections (2) and (3) apply to both those classes of person. Those classes are, respectively, persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and, secondly, persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies although they may also have some other citizenship.
In the remainder of Clause 3, and particularly in subsection (4), we are concerned with the second of those classes, whom I might describe as primarily citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They also are covered by subsection (2), but it is not to the impact upon them of subsection (2) that I wish to refer because that will be covered in the debate which will arise on the next group of amendments. I am therefore solely concerned with the subsection as it applies by virtue of Clause 6 to non-citizens of the United Kingdom and

Colonies. When it is so applied it is read with "United Kingdom" substituted for "Great Britain" in line 19. I hope that I have interpreted correctly so far.
I have now reached the point at which I can ask for the clarification which I seek. I do not understand why, in deciding to make an exclusion order against a person who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it is necessary either for the Home Secretary or, under the powers in respect of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to have regard to the question whether that person's connection with any territory outside the United Kingdom is such as to render the making of an order appropriate.
I can see the point of that consideration in the context to which we shall come with the following subsections. But if for the purposes of the Bill a non-citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is to be excluded from the United Kingdom, I do not see why one has to consider before taking that decision whether he has special connections with, for instance, France, the Argentine or the Irish Republic.
It is to that point of clarification, and to the function of the subsection in regard to the state of the Minister's mind in making an exclusion order in relation to persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, that I move the amendment in an exploratory sense.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman has, as always, put his point with great clarity, although he will recognise that the subsection applies not only to those who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but to those who arc. I had it in mind just as much to deal with the former category as with the latter, with citizens as well as non-citizens.
While the subsection is not mandatory—it is something to which I would have to have regard—the intention is to meet the point that it would not be appropriate to make an exclusion order which meant sending someone to a country with which he had no meaningful connection. It is intended as a protection against Northern Ireland being used as a dumping ground, as it has sometimes been put. It would not be my intention, in the case of someone who was or was not a citizen, to send him to Northern Ireland unless he had a strong and clear connection with Northern Ireland.
Equally, I do not think that it would be reasonable to try to send a non-citizen to the Republic of Ireland, unless he had a clear connection with the Republic. The subsection is meant to make it clear that for both citizens and non-citizens, in the exceptional circumstances in which exclusion orders were used, for exceptional security reasons, the general intention would be to send them back home and not to a country which was in no way their home.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that on balance that is a protection for the part of the United Kingdom with which he is now most concerned.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for taking the question another stage further. Whilst I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and the purpose of the subsection in that context, I am still not clear as to the working where non-citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.
3.15 a.m.
Under Clause 6(1), an exclusion order, when made against a non-citizen, is an exclusion order from the United Kingdom as a whole. In making that order the Secretary of State must still have regard to Clause 3(2), but he must read "United Kingdom" instead of "Great Britain" in applying Clause 3(2). If I am correct, as I think I am, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to make an exclusion order from the whole of the United Kingdom—that is the only order he can make against a non-citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—cannot do it unless he has had regard to the connection of that person with a territory outside the United Kingdom.
Surely in the case of an exclusion order, as of deportation—though one does not secure the dispatch of a deportee to a country to which he does not want to go, on the whole, one attempts to send him to a place which he accepts—it is not a consideration in deciding whether to deport a non-citizen, and similarly surely it cannot be a consideration in deciding whether to exclude a non-citizen to decide that he has or has not a connection with a particular foreign country.
I apologise for having remade, I hope correctly and clearly, the point on which I was endeavouring to concentrate.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in the case of a non-citizen it could not be a consideration which could be regarded as decisive against deportation or, for that matter, against exclusion, though it would be a consideration regarding where it would be appropriate to deport or exclude the person to.
There is, however, a further point which may help to explain the point to the right hon. Gentleman. Many people have dual nationality—the nationality of the Republic of Ireland, and citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In the event of an exclusion order being made against such a person, it would be extremely important and of great value to the right hon. Gentleman and the position he represents that regard should be had to what is in effect the homeland, whether it be south or north Ireland, of the individual concerned. It would not be the intention to exclude such a person with dual nationality to Northern Ireland if his affiliations clearly were with the Republic.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his patience. I think that Clause 6 applies to people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore do not have that duality. However, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.

The Chairman: With this we can also discuss the following amendments:

No. 23, in page 3, line 25, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert
'the United Kingdom or any designated part or parts thereof'.

No. 24, in page 3, line 30, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert
'the United Kingdom or that part or parts, as the case may be'.

No. 25, in page 3, line 30, at end insert 'or the United Kingdom'.

No. 32, in page 4, line 4, at end add—
'(8) For the purposes of this section, "designated" means designated by the Secretary of State by an order made under this Act'.

No. 38, in Clause 5, page 5, line 7, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert
'the United Kingdom or the designated part, as the case may be'.

No. 46, in Clause 9, page 7, line 31, at end insert
'"designated" has the meaning given by section 3(8) of this Act'.

No. 53, in Schedule 3, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end and add 'or Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Powell: This is the first of a series of amendments by which my hon. Friends and I seek to raise an issue of great importance and principle and which featured appreciably in the Second Reading debate.
As the Bill is drafted, and considering only people who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—our own people; whether or not they have any other nationality, for this purpose at any rate they are our own people—the Bill makes provision for orders to be made excluding them from Great Britain—by implication, unless they choose to leave the United Kingdom altogether, requiring them to repair to Northern Ireland. There is no similar provision in relation to our people in Northern Ireland for making exclusion orders which would require them to repair to Great Britain. Thus, two results follow.
The United Kingdom for the purposes of these emergency provisions is divided into two parts, Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively, and those two parts are treated radically differently, in that the exclusion traffic, if I may so describe it, is one-way traffic from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The natural anxiety which representatives of Northern Ireland feel at any marked differentiation of that kind being made between their part of the United Kingdom and the rest was enhanced by words which fell from the Minister of State in winding-up the Second Reading debate when he said in this context that in Northern Ireland there were available powers of detention which might apply to such persons which were not available and are not being provided inside Great Britain.
As hon. Members study the clause they will see that in pursuance of this system of exclusion orders excluding from Great Britain vis-à-vis Northern Ireland, the definition of those who are not liable to be the subject of exclusion orders in subsection (4) almost approaches the definition of a citizenship within a citizenship. In some of the subsequent amendments we shall be considering one or two of the details of subsection (4) but, taking it as a whole, it is a definition of people who cannot be removed and that, as those who lived through the Immigration Act 1971 will recall, is one of the most effective ways of defining a national or a citizen, for it is one of the inherent characteristics of a national of a country that from that country he cannot be removed. He can be punished in it but, in modern times, he cannot be driven out of it.
In the framing of the powers of the exclusion orders, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with defined connections with Great Britain are given a kind of citizenship of Great Britain which protects them from being the subject of an exclusion order, and that accentuates the divide which the Bill makes by those provisions between the one part of the United Kingdom and the other part of the United Kingdom.
I am, after all, moving the first of a series of amendments. So, if I may, I will indicate briefly what those amendments will do. I do so not in the temerarious hope that they will be acceptable without more ado to the Government and their legal advisers, but because the intended effect of those amendments illustrates the position which my hon. Friends and I would like to see.
The amendments seek to make the exclusion orders a power to exclude persons either from the United Kingdom as a whole—that raises no problem and we dealt with it on a previous amendment—or from any specified part of the United Kingdom. We propose to give the Secretary of State power by order to designate a part or parts for that purpose. By those means we throw an umbrella over the whole of the United Kingdom. We say reluctantly and in common with almost all hon. Members, that we recognise that some use of this extraordinary power to force a person to move from one part of his own country to another,


or to prevent him from moving from one part of his own country to another, must be accepted, but that it must be regarded as a use which is accepted initially in the United Kingdom as a whole but which, given the circumstances, must be applied to a part or parts, left to be designated.
In practice, the result of this would be, and the object of our amendment is, what I might for simplicity call "reciprocity"—that if it is considered necessary, in these exceptional circumstances, to compel a citizen of the United Kingdom to repair out of Great Britain into Northern Ireland, or, if he is in Northern Ireland, not to enter Great Britain, there should be a corresponding power to prevent a person from Great Britain repairing to Northern Ireland or to return him to Great Britain if he has moved to Northern Ireland—in other words, complete reciprocity.
The object of this reciprocity is not only to satisfy the very important principle that we must not—above all not in this context—do anything which calls in question or jeopardises the unity of the United Kingdom. There is also a practical consideration, and while none of us could give numerical value to it, it is a very substantial practical consideration.
No doubt there are persons in Great Britain who are connected with Northern Ireland, who intend remaining in Great Britain to do a mischief here, and who, granted the principle of the Bill, may properly be prevented from either resorting to Great Britain to do it or staying in Great Britain to do it. But then there are also persons in Great Britain who have the purpose of resorting to Northern Ireland to cause a mischief there. These are not exclusively persons who are either of Ulster origin or of Republican Irish origin. They may be, and we all recall cases where they have been, if I may use the expression, "purely Great Britain".
There are, therefore, practical as well as theoretical and constitutional grounds that we should seek to embody the principle of what I have, for brevity, described as "reciprocity" in this Bill—that if there is to be enforced exclusion from Great Britain, and enforced movement, in effect, to Northern Ireland, there should, where circumstances in the opinion of the relevant Minister require it, be provided the

possibility of movement in the opposite direction.
I move this amendment in order to give the Government the opportunity to indicate their position on a matter the importance of which, I apprehend, to the United Kingdom as a whole is quite decisive, for reasons already mentioned and well understood to those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Hooley: I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about this clause and about the principle embodied in it. I find it the most disturbing and disagreeable part of the legislation.
To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a situation in the United Kingdom in which the Government, especially by executive fiat, with no authority from a court, have been able to move a citizen from one part of the Kingdom to another part on the ground that he or she might be a danger or a nuisance. It is accepted that a person who is a threat or is thought to be a threat to the peace and security of the realm can be put in prison, or apprehended, or put under some form of control in that way. But to designate an area of the kingdom to which he or she must go and remain and, by definition, other areas of the kingdom where he or she may not go and remain, even though that may have been his or her normal domicile for up to 20 years and where presumably his or her family, home and job and whole life have been, is, so far as I know, a completely new principle and a very dangerous one.
The only comparison that I know of is the practice in South Africa, where citizens can be moved out of areas where they have always lived and sent off by administrative action 100, 200 miles or wherever it pleases the authorities to send them, because they are considered a nuisance. This kind of parallel is extremely disturbing. If we are introducing legislation which is comparable with the legislation existing in South Africa, whatever the reasons, I find that profoundly disturbing and a matter to which we as Members of Parliament should give very serious thought.
We shall come later to the safeguards against the use or abuse of this power and against executive authority to do


this simply under the authority of the Secretary of State. I shall not go into that aspect now. But, of all these provisions, this is the one that I find the most disturbing. I am extremely reluctant to support it.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I note what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I deal briefly with my hon. Friend's remarks before turning to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
I regret nearly all the provisions in this Bill, though I accept none of them as being in any way comparable with anything prevailing in South Africa. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press that argument.
Nor is my hon. Friend right in saying that this provision is without precedent. Although there was a slightly different citizenship at that time, the Prevention of Violence Act 1939, upon which this part of the Bill is closely based, gave exactly the power to exclude people and to send them in certain circumstances to Northern Ireland. So it is not without precedent.
What is without precedent is the danger with which we are confronted in this island at present. The 1939 Prevention of Violence Act was carried through this House in little longer than we are taking, but not very much, and it was not opposed by the Opposition. That was done after there had been in this country exactly two deaths. The position that we have to look back upon in the past few months is very much more serious. So what is without precedent is the danger. What is not without precedent is this part of the measures that we are taking to deal with it.
No protection is complete, of course. But it would not be right in present circumstances to fail to give an important protection to peaceful British citizens in the way that we are endeavouring to do.

Mr. Hooley: I do not dissent from the principle that the Government are entitled to protect citizens against the people of whom we are thinking in this Bill. That kind of protection could be achieved by putting them in prison or in some secure place in the conventional manner, without designating an area to

which they are exiled, as it were. What is the objection to that alternative?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I fear that it is broadly the case that terrorists can be convicted of terrorism only after they have committed acts of terrorism. I want to try to deal with them before they have committed acts of terrorism. I believe that that is what necessary protection involves. As to putting them in a safe place here, my hon. Friend seemed to be advocating detention in Great Britain. I do not think that that would be a course that anyone would wish to propose.
The right hon. Member for Down, South stressed that this measure was making a division between two parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he will recollect that a short time ago, referring to Part I of the Bill, he said that he welcomed it as bringing the state of the law more closely together within the two parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, he will not take the point that the whole direction of the Bill is there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is temporarily not present, in the course of debating an earlier amendment, said that there have been certain significant divisions, often by the choice of Northern Ireland, though not exactly the same as this one.
In the course of a ministerial career going back and embracing a number of ministries, I have carried through a substantial number of Bills—fortunately not many of them at this hour of the morning and not with this degree of pressure—not one of which has applied to Northern Ireland. That has been by the choice of the Northern Ireland authorities and constitution. That applied even when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was carrying Finance Bills through the House. The Northern Ireland authorities, broadly speaking, chose to follow the lead given by the Finance Bills, though not always to the exact letter. It was a matter for them to decide according to what they wished to do. We then operated under an arrangement which was the choice of the governing party in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not entirely true to say that there has been no division and no difference between the two parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kilfedder: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there has been a difference between legislation enacted for England and Wales and that enacted for Scotland on a number of occasions. However, that does not mean that the Scottish people are separated or less British citizens than those who live in England and Wales.

Mr. Jenkins: It does not mean that they are less citizens. There is sometimes different legislation for England and Wales from that for Scotland, but a great deal less frequently than seems to be suggested by the hon. Gentleman. My point—I do not wish to press it too hard—is that I do not think that I have carried through a Bill which applied to Northern Ireland, whereas nearly all the Bills that I have carried through have applied to Scotland. The practical difference is quite substantial. I think that is a relevant point.
Nobody wants to create divisions any deeper than are necessary, but it would be idle to pretend that there are not differences between the two parts of the United Kingdom at present.
We greatly regret the position which has arisen in Northern Ireland, particularly since 1969. I do not believe that until we eradicate the root cause of the trouble there we will have complete peace or security in this island. I think that we can all agree about that. We do not wish to shut our eyes or minds to it in any way.
Equally, looking back on the appalling history of Northern Ireland since 1969, I think that there is a duty upon all of us to prevent a similar pattern developing in this island so far as it lies within our power to do so.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that he attacks not so much the principle of exclusion to Northern Ireland head on as the desire for reciprocity, as he put it. The right hon. Gentleman first took the point, and the amendment seeks to suggest, that the Secretary of State could designate any part of the United Kingdom as being an area to which or from which an exclusion order could be made. I should not think it appropriate to accept that, but even if I did—which I am far from doing—I do not believe that the Committee would for a moment allow me to accept it, because it would mean that in order to deal with a particular

danger that arises, regrettably, in relation to one part of the United Kingdom I should have to take arbitrary power to prohibit people in Wales and Scotland, or even in Yorkshire or Cornwall, from going into other parts of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that to take such power would be a most extraordinary step and one that would not be acceptable to the Committee.
When the right hon. Gentleman comes much nearer to reality, to practicality, is when he says that there ought to be reciprocity in the sense that just as it is possible to exclude, subject to stringent conditions, someone who belongs to Northern Ireland from Great Britain if it is thought he is a danger to security—and I stress that these orders will be used in a very limited number of cases—so it ought to be possible to exclude from Northern Ireland somebody whose belonging is in England, Scotland or Wales as the case may be and who is a security risk in Northern Ireland.
I am not persuaded that there is a similar practical problem that way as there is the other way. I think it is possible that people may come over to London or some other city for a short period and perhaps plan acts of terrorism and then return and commit them in Northern Ireland. I should say that in the overwhelming majority of cases the people were not firmly domiciled in Great Britain, in the sense that people have to belong to Northern Ireland for it to be possible to make an exclusion order confining them to Northern Ireland. I should therefore need a little persuading that there was a practical problem as opposed to a theoretical case for reciprocity here.
Furthermore, it would not be possible to amend the Bill at this stage. By that I do not mean at this stage of the night. The Bill would require considerable restructuring for such an arrangement to be possible. A certain amount of restructuring has been done by the insertion of Clause 6—I am afraid it is a complicated clause—which is a peg on which it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to make an order erecting as it were another ring fence around the United Kingdom as a whole against certain undesirable people. That clause was put in to meet what I believe was the rightful desire not only of my right hon. Friend but of the House generally to


provide that degree of protection for Northern Ireland. It would not be practical at this stage to provide reciprocity between the two parts of the United Kingdom.
However, what I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee is that I do not see or take any objection in principle on the point of reciprocity, as opposed to the point of the right arbitrarily to designate any area of the United Kingdom as an exclusion area. I see no objection of principle to the point of reciprocity, but I see a certain need to be convinced that it is a practical problem and I see the insuperable difficulty of altering the Bill so as to provide for the matter.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Powell: To avoid misunderstanding, perhaps I could say—probably the right hon. Gentleman understands this—that the proposal to designate specific parts was an attempt to achieve a method of drafting which would set out from the United Kingdom and arrive at the part with which it was desired in practice to operate. I am sure that he does not take it as the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that it would be desirable to have all kinds of exclusion orders going in different directions inside the United Kingdom. I thought it worth while to clear that up.

Mr. Jenkins: I of course accept that from the right hon. Gentleman. I understand what is in his mind here, although, like any other Minister in charge of a Bill, I am bound to have regard to the literal effect of amendments as well as to the intentions of those who draft them. It would not be for the right hon. Gentleman or for me—although to some extent it would be for me or for a future Secretary of State—to interpret the effect of powers which would be so wide-ranging as to be wholly unacceptable.
I do not reject the principle of reciprocity; nor does my right hon. Friend. It is not possible to include it in the Bill. Although I could not give an undertaking. I hope that it will not be necessary to renew the Bill. I hope that we shall need it for as short a time as possible. If it were necessary, it might be possible to do it by order, by a simple repeat of the Bill. There is another option, that of keeping some parts of the Bill in opera-

tion by order, but not all. There is the fourth possibility, that it would unfortunately be felt desirable to maintain a Bill with the effect of this Bill for some further period, whether beyond the first six months or, after renewal, still further, although I hope very much that that would not be the case.
If at that stage certain other defects had shown themselves in the working of the Bill, so that it was necessary not to extend it by order but to recast it, as I undertook on Second Reading, I would consider how it was working over the six months, and, if it were regrettably necessary to renew but also necessary to change its working in certain ways, I would certainly consider the possibility of including in the redrafting an element of reciprocity.

Mr. Molyneaux: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he has not closed his mind to the possibility that he may be able to meet some of our requirements if and when legislative changes were necessary in six months. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has with great clarity given what I might call the citizenship considerations. Could I, rather less ably, give what I regard as the political considerations and the reasons that we feel that this degree of reciprocity is essential?
It has already been said that the IRA regards any weakening of the Union as a concession to its objectives. This at all costs we must avoid. However much we in this Parliament might explain the finer points of constitutional law, the propaganda experts in the IRA can and will distort the position to brainwash the lower ranks of their organisation who have in the past shown that they are not noted for their ability to think for themselves.
Secondly, the law-abiding majority of the people of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain—I use the word "majority" in its widest sense, because I include the approximately 98 per cent, of the people of Northern Ireland who want no act or part of law breaking or violence—could regard this as open to misinterpretation if we leave this measure just as it is at present. It could even cause uneasiness and alarm. In that kind of unstable


situation there would be a temptation for people to take what one might delicately call "extra-parliamentary activities".
Thirdly, this comes at a time when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleague the Minister of State are striving to lower the temperature in Northern Ireland so that the elections to the Convention can take place in a relatively calm atmosphere. I emphasise "relatively". Their efforts are supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We also agree that it is absolutely essential that those elections should be held against the background of political stability, otherwise we cannot expect that the outcome of the elections to the Convention, still less the outcome of the deliberations of the Convention, will be all that the House of Commons would desire.
This is why I welcome the Home Secretary's words. I think that they will provide a great deal of reassurance to people who might otherwise have felt somewhat uneasy about certain aspects of the legislation.

Mr. Gow: Under subsection (3) the Home Secretary has power to make an order prohibiting a person
from being in, or entering, Great Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he hoped and envisaged that the number of orders which he would make if the Bill should become law would be very limited.
Then we come to the question of reciprocity. Is it within the knowledge of the Minister of State that it would have been helpful to him or to his right hon. Friend to have made an order in the months when the Minister of State has held his present office to prohibit somebody from entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain? That is where reciprocity is at its most important level.

Mr. Fitt: I believe that an area of unreality is beginning to creep into the debate. Anyone who is realistic will admit that there are very clear differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
For many years Northern Ireland insisted on going its own way. It had a Special Powers Act. It had different electoral rolls. It had a different system of local government. It had a different

system of allocating houses. It wanted to have its own little kingdom in Northern Ireland and it did not particularly want reforms. Indeed, it bitterly resisted attempts when they were first made in 1968, 1969 and 1970 by the Labour Government to bring about reform in Northern Ireland. Those attempts met with bitter intransigence by the then Government of Northern Ireland. We hear all this talk about them being United Kingdom citizens who accept United Kingdom standards and that there is no difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is all so much talk. The people who are responsible for it refused in May this year to observe an edict which had the full support of both sides of this House on the bringing into operation of a power-sharing government.
The Ulster Unionists, now protesting their loyalty to the United Kingdom and their acceptance of British standards, told the British Parliament then, "You can have your edicts. We do not accept your attempts to dictate parliamentary or political policies in Northern Ireland." There are, therefore, very clear distinctions.
Take for example the Northern Ireland Act to safeguard employment. Since 1949 a person from this side of the water could not get a job in Northern Ireland without an employment permit issued by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Labour, later the Department of Health and Social Security. The Act was designed to prevent people coming from the Republic and getting work in the North. To sugar-coat the pill the legislation had to apply to people from England, Scotland and Wales—not that all that many people from those countries were anxious to go to Northern Ireland for a job.
This new term "reciprocity" has been introduced into our affairs. It is being used simply to please the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He feels that since Britain can exclude people from one part of the United Kingdom and dump them in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland must have reciprocity, to save face, so that it can dump persons back on Britain. It is highly unlikely that those circumstances will ever arise. One of my hon. Friends referred to legislation in South Africa which enables the authorities to ban people from certain territories


and direct them to live in other parts. Under the Bill terrorists and undesirables who may be likely to cause mischief can be transported out of Britain. There are many people in Down, South who believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South came over to Northern Ireland to cause mischief. Perhaps the right hon. Member's aura is following him, and perhaps we are about to set up Bantu reservations in Northern Ireland to which we can expel the undesirables from Britain.
4.0 a.m.
The realities of the situation should be examined. If the Home Secretary ever excludes someone from Birmingham, Coventry, Cardiff, Glasgow or any other part of Great Britain, and sends him to Northern Ireland the circumstances are likely to be that that person was born within the Six Counties. Such a person will be deported on suspicion that he has been giving support to a proscribed organisation and when he arrives in Northern Ireland it will be almost obligatory for the police to arrest him.
He has been sent out of Great Britain on suspicion of giving support to an illegal organisation. The Northern Ireland authorities would have to take that into consideration. The responsibility for such a person would then be transferred to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There would be only one answer—that man would be interned.
I understand the Home Secretary when he says that he does not like internment. I understand those who say that it offends our concept of democracy. But what is being said is, "You have got internment and we will keep it going." We should be honest about that. If we find an undesirable in Northern Ireland and he is sent over here he will not be interned. He may appear before the courts. There is therefore a clear distinction between what happens in Northern Ireland and what happens in Great Britain. It is surprising to see Northern Ireland representatives clinging to the British with tenacious loyalty—which they signally failed to show throughout their period of domination of Northern Ireland, when they rejected the opinions of this Parliament. Now they say that because they are so British they cannot afford to make any differentiation.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: It would not speed our progress if I were to discuss the events leading to the Ulster Workers' Council strike and the Government's activity, or inactivity, in dealing with it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has a point when he says that anyone excluded from Great Britain and sent to Northern Ireland would almost certainly be interned. I wonder whether there is any formal obligation on the part of the Government in this country to inform the authorities in Northern Ireland that such a person is being excluded and ought to be watched on arrival.
The Home Secretary has reminded us that the power to exclude certain people from Great Britain and send them to Northern Ireland was enacted in the Emergency Powers Act 1939. I cannot claim to have read all of that debate, but I had the impression that at that time there was no protest from the Northern Ireland Members that that power was included in the Act. This time there has been some protest. There has been some feeling that Northern Ireland was to be a Siberia of Great Britain. When the people of Northern Ireland have suffered so much I do not want to give any foundation to the feeling that we are treating them as Siberians. I ask the Home Secretary whether the powers to which I have referred were ever used. Is there a precedent for sending a person from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to be regretted that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not present when the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was making loud affirmations that he fully supported his right hon. Friend. Yet the Social Democratic and Labour Party Chief Whip, Mr. Paddy Devlin, tonight in a letter to the Prime Minister said:
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was more lethal in the present situation in Northern Ireland than a Provisional IRA proxy bomb.
So much for the affirmation made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West.
Whether we like it or not, and whatever interpretation we care to make, it has been declared by this Parliament that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It has been decided that


Northern Ireland citizens are United Kingdom citizens and any Member would justly define the rights of the citizens within his constituency. My right hon. and hon. Friends are saying that we are United Kingdom citizens as a result of a law passed in this House. It was passed not in the old Stormont Parliament but in this House. This House has conferred upon us United Kingdom citizenship. Therefore, we object strongly that for the first time in history a United Kingdom citizen can be expelled from a part of the United Kingdom and sent to another part and that another part of the United Kingdom may be said to be a place to which he cannot go.
It is reasonable tonight for the Northern Ireland Members to bring the matter before the Committee. A young lady came from London to Northern Ireland and committed an outrage. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had wanted to expel that person from Northern Ireland to England it is clear from what the Home Secretary has said that that would not have been possible. We are arguing that it should be possible.
There is another important point which causes me great concern. If a person suspected of terrorism in this country is expelled by the right hon. Gentleman's order, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has no power under the emergency powers to detain. He may only detain on the commission or suspicion of terrorism in Northern Ireland, but not in Great Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman were to detain in those circumstances the suspected person would be brought before the commissioners. It would be pointed out by his legal advisers that he was wrongly detained. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has no power to detain an expelled person. It would worry us that one would be expelling a person whom the right hon. Gentleman thinks is going to commit an act of terrorism, and yet legally he would be free in Northern Ireland. This is a very important matter for the safety of Northern Ireland at this time.

Mr. Powell: The debate has illustrated the difficulties into which we are placed by the extreme constriction of time and by attempting to draft and pass a Bill in seven days flat, which is what the Government set themselves to do.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that there had been changes in the form of the Bill up to shortly before its presentation. I have no doubt that if there were even the three days which were available in 1939 and a gap between this stage and the next stage of the Bill, it would be found possible to make further improvements. But nobody thinks that this is an ideal method of legislating and we have to take things as they are.
The Home Secretary has said several things which are very important and which I assure him are very helpful to those whom we on this bench represent. In the first place he has done his best by his statement of principle to dispel from the minds of people in Northern Ireland the feeling that they are to be the recipients of a one-way traffic in terrorists. So far as, without alteration of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman could dispel that by his assertion of principle, he has done so.
The right hon. Gentleman has also accepted that he does not intend necessarily just to renew this Bill, with its imperfections—and more will be discovered—six months at a time so long as it remains necessary. I do not expect there are many hon. Members who think that six months will see out the circumstances which are keeping us here this morning. There will also be in that first six months a good deal of experience that is not available at present simply because of the operation of the Bill during that six months.
The Home Secretary said something which was very unusual for a Minister presenting a Bill renewable by order. He went on record, not as saying that he will not renew it by order or will not renew it as it stands, but as saying that he holds open an alternative of amending the Bill by due legislative process. I do not see how, given the difficulties we are under by reasons of time, the right hon. Gentleman could have done more to bring reassurance to those whose anxieties I and others of my colleagues have attempted to voice.
The problem is not solved, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand it as no discourtesy if we should allow the amendment symbolically to be negatived rather than withdrawn. But I do not want any misunderstanding on that


account as to the value which will accrue in Northern Ireland as a result of what the Home Secretary said.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I hope I may be allowed to intervene briefly without prolonging the debate.
I am grateful for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I am sure he took note of what I said. I said that I was not opposed to the principle of reciprocity—that I needed to be convinced that there was a practical case for it, but that my mind remained open. I went on to say that if the Bill, regrettably, had to be renewed and there were a number of reasons for altering it, I would seriously consider dealing with this point, but that I would not legislate rather than proceed by order for this purpose alone. That is a point which I should like to put firmly on the record. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member, my hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that the answer to his question is "No".
4.15 a.m.
I am not able absolutely to check at present the point put by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). One hundred and thirteen deportation orders were made in the first two months and it is highly unlikely that some of them were not to Northern Ireland. However, I am not able to give an absolute assurance about the number of orders. I would have to embrace what number of exclusion orders I thought right in the circumstances, but I do not expect them to be very many.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: May I press my right hon. Friend about this? It seems to be worrying a number of us. We have heard graphic descriptions of the interpretation of this measure by Members from Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend describe how he envisages the mechanics for expulsion? Will a man be escorted to a ship, hovercraft or aircraft? Will he be transported to Northern Ireland and will he then be left free? Will he be freed as he gets on to the ship, hovercraft or aircraft in this country or will he be freed when he gets to the other side?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that it will follow the normal mechanics concerning the

execution of a deportation order following a court recommendation, which occurs not too frequently but quite frequently. It does not follow that a person's exclusion in Great Britain itself would warrant his detention in Northern Ireland. That must depend on the person's conduct in relation to Northern Ireland.

Sir Keith Joseph: We, too, shared some anxiety about the problems raised by this and related amendments, and we have an amendment down. We should like to express our admiration for the ingenuity of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues and our respect for the degree to which the Home Secretary has moved very cautiously and in a well-defined way to meet the worries of hon. Members from Northern Ireland.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Lane: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 36, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we are taking also the following Amendments:

No. 28, in page 3, line 36, leave out '20' and insert '30'.

No. 29, in page 3, line 36, leave out '20' and insert '5'.

No. 61, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
'(c) may be in peril of his life if excluded from Great Britain.'

Mr. Lane: We ought to pause a moment at this point to ask the Government to make clear the basis on which, with reference to Amendment No. 27, the exclusion in paragraph (a) has been drafted—that is, that the exclusion order cannot be made against citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain at the time and have been ordinarily resident throughout the last 20 years. We are taking together one or two amendments to vary the time of 20 years either upwards or downwards.
We know from the Government that they are using the exact precedent of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939, but they should explain why they have decided to repeat those provisions unchanged. As I understand this provision, we could be dealing here


with three categories of individual. The first is someone born in Ulster. The second is somebody born outside the United Kingdom—it might be in America, the Irish Republic, Germany or elsewhere—who has been naturalised as a United Kingdom citizen. The third is somebody who has been a Commonwealth citizen and has become a United Kingdom citizen by registration.

Mr. Stallard: When the hon. Gentleman says "Ulster" does he include the three counties in the Republic?

Mr. Lane: I am talking of Northern Ireland as it is now.
The wording of the Bill means, I think, that someone who was born in Northern Ireland 22 years ago, say, but came to Britain when he was one year old, would now be exempt from the exclusion order. I ask the Minister for a justification of this. If we arc to take the power at all, which none of us likes, we should err on the side of length to minimise the exclusions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The time taken as the period during which ordinary residence would count as a bar against the making of an exclusion order is necessarily arbitrary. There can be arguments for 10 or 30 years, or anything in between. The 20-year period follows the 1939 Act. In trying to assess whether it is valid one must make a nice judgment. I am not sure that our 20 years is to be preferred to the 25 years suggested, but the object is to make it clear that if a person has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain for that period it would be wrong in principle to treat him as if he were not so attached to this country that he was capable of being excluded.
I shall listen with care to what is said about Amendment No. 29, but I think that the figure of five given in it would be too low in relation to what we are trying to get at in the clause, which takes exceptional powers that we all regret, but which appears to be necessary at this time if we are to deal with the problem of terrorism.
I cannot offer any rational explanation for choosing 20 years instead of 25 or 30, except to say that to the Government

20 seems a fair estimate of length of residence to establish close connection.

Mr. Hooley: The Bill accepts the principle that residence in this country for an extended period is a defence against the power to exclude, to report a person from his normal domicile within Great Britain. Therefore, my Amendment No. 29 in no way infringes the principle which is already within the Bill.
We appear to have been working on the assumption that all the people who will be affected by the Bill will have already committed savage crimes such as those which occurred in Birmingham and on the M62. But that is not so. Under subsection (3)(a) people who may be subject to exclusion orders are not necessarily people who have committed such crimes but people against whom it may be alleged that they are preparing or instigating them. This in itself is no mitigation of terrorism, but it means that a large number of people may be swept into the net of suspicion, because the accusation is not that they have committed crimes or necessarily that they have prepared or instigated crimes but simply that the Secretary of State has some reason for thinking so.
Therefore, we need to proceed with some care in the arrangements for checking that there are safeguards against the exercise of this power. One of the safeguards already written in the Bill is that a person cannot be excluded if he has already the qualification of residence. I should think that under this arrangement the hardship and problems which could arise and the consequences of an exclusion for someone who had been resident in this country for as long as 18 or 19 years—which is possible if we accept the maximum of 20 years—would be such that we should have considerable cause before accepting a limitation as wide as that.
I should have thought that a person who had been resident here for more than five years and who had established himself, his family, relatives, and so on, here should have some protection against this form of legislation, though I agree entirely with the Home Secretary that if it was established that he was a terrorist, or was likely to be so, other forms of punishment or constraint would be appropriate in the form of imprisonment or charge before the courts.
But I am concerned that the power to deport one of our own citizens away from his or her home and surroundings by a directive of the Secretary of State could be exercised against a person who had spent 15, 16, 18 or up to 20 years in residence in this country with his wife, family, children and relatives and who presumably had a job. We would create, if he did not become subject to the internment we have been discussing, a landless, jobless person who could not reasonably fit into the new situation in which he found himself. Therefore, I have serious reservations about this provision in the terms in which it is written. I should much prefer a different term of residential defence.
I am not sure whether you, Mr. Thomas, would wish me to speak to Amendment No. 61, which is on a slightly different point.

The Chairman: I have linked Amendment No. 61 with the other amendments. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is the moment to speak to it, he may do so.

Mr. Hooley: Amendment No. 61 proposes to insert a new paragraph (c) in page 3, line 38:
(c) may be in peril of his life if excluded from Great Britain 
In other words, it would be a defence against exclusion if a person could show that by being excluded from Great Britain and sent to Northern Ireland or Eire there was serious ground to suppose that his life might be at risk.
4.30 a.m.
That circumstance is not theoretical. A Roman Catholic in this country who was alleged to be involved in terrorist affairs could be in serious danger of assassination once he arrived in Northern Ireland. It is improper and contrary to practice for a person to be expelled from this country to an area in which there is a strong presumption for thinking that his life might be in danger. Persons have not been deported to their country of origin if it has been thought that their lives would thereby be imperilled. That principle should be laid down in the Bill as an additional safeguard.

Mr. Kilfedder: I feel that 20 years is too short a time. A number of persons from Ireland who have appeared before the courts in this country charged with terrorism have been here for close on

20 years. Many people with Republican sympathies came to this country ages ago. They may join IRA cells and lie low and. when the time is ripe, they strike. The amendment is a reasonable one which extends that period to 25 years.
In Great Britain there are about 200,000 people from Northern Ireland and over a million citizens from the Irish Republic. Those citizens of the Irish Republic claim dual nationality——

Mr. Mendelson: They do not claim it; they have it.

Mr. Kilfedder: Yes, but it is a case of the Irish having their cake and eating it. They often say, "Burn everything English but their coal", and "Hurt the British in their pride and in their pocket", but when it comes to money and jobs they are prepared to leave Eire to come to Great Britain. They come because the Safeguard of Employment Act in Northern Ireland prevents them from flooding into Northern Ireland.
If people who have been resident here for 18 years appear before the courts charged with offences of terrorism, it shows that they have not lost their Irish Republican sympathies. The 20 years is too low a limit.
I suppose I am adopting an Irish attitude on this, but perhaps I may be allowed now to consider a contrary argument in view of what the Government spokesman said. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is right for one simple reason—that if the Government are going to make expulsion orders in respect of people who come from Northern Ireland and send them back there, it would be better if the Government were restricted to making these orders in respect of persons who have been in Great Britain for a maximum period of five years, because it is clear that when these people go back to Northern Ireland they will not be arrested the moment they land. They can disappear into Republican areas and engage in acts of terrorism. It is difficult enough for the Armed Forces to round up those who are at the moment murdering, maiming and destroying. For that reason, perhaps one should support Amendment No. 61. It is a difficult situation. There are merits on both sides of the case.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The effect of this provision is to


divide citizens of this country into two classes for the purpose of determining their liability to exclusion. Presumably the point is to differentiate between those who, because of the permanent nature of their residence here, it is thought inappropriate to exclude, from those whom, because it is felt they may owe loyalties elsewhere, it is thought appropriate to exclude.
Surely this can be effected without such a far-reaching and abitrary point of measurement as the one proposed in the Bill. It would mean that Irish families who had lived here for almost a generation, who had homes and jobs here, and. indeed, whose children were born here, could be told that they had failed the test of permanent residence and were uniquely in a class liable to exclusion.
It is my simple concern that this is a wildly inappropriate test. I believe that it would do positive harm on at least two grounds. First, it would divide from the rest of the community for this purpose a substantial proportion of the Irish community living here. We should be saying to them that they are a section of the community under suspicion, not to be trusted, and for that reason to be placed at risk of losing some of the most fundamental rights of citizenship.
Secondly, I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's concern that there should be no backlash against the Irish community. For that reason, I urge him to consider whether this provision will not produce the very reaction he fears. This is important not just on grounds of morality, civil liberty and justice but for our security situation. It would be tragic if, by taking measures which are unnecessarily repressive and discriminatory, we were to lead a section of the community to believe that, on arbitrary grounds, it was being alienated from and therefore made hostile to the rest of the community. We should look carefully at this provision on that ground alone.
But there is another danger. I believe that the introduction of a 20-year residence requirement would be a very dangerous precedent in modern conditions. We have unfortunately over recent years become accustomed to a steady erosion of the concept of citizenship. We have made finer and finer distinctions and created more and more sub-groups.

Many people resident here will see this as a further step along a path they have watched with alarm. They will fear that a 20-year residence requirement used here for this purpose may be used on some future occasion for another purpose. Therefore, that is a minor merit of the proposal in the amendment of a five-year residence term. It has the merit of according with the period of residence already specified in Section 2 of the Immigration Act as the test for the right to claim abode in this country. It would be inconsistent to use different terms of residence for the purpose of claiming abode and being able to resist exclusion.
There are two arguments in favour of the Government's proposal. The first is that it is the period of time specified in the 1939 legislation. Surely an argument based on the view that what was right 35 years ago is right now has less weight in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Second, it is suggested that there is something in the events of the past few days which makes 20 years appropriate. I urge my right hon. Friend not to accede to ad hominem arguments of this kind. He has adequate powers of detention and in relation to proscribed organisations to deal with people who are genuinely resident in this country.
I urge my right hon. Friend not to be led into pressing forward a measure which, for the reasons I have tried to explain, would prejudice our security situation and unnecessarily prejudice the civil rights of a large number of people in this country.

Mr. Lane: I am not wholly convinced by the explanation that we have had from the Minister of State. However. I shall not press the argument further at this point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: This is perhaps the opportunity to put one question which should be formally put and answered before we part with Part II.
Those hon. Members who were concerned with the Immigration Act 1971 will remember the great care which was devoted by the House to the question of the wives and children of persons who


were deported under the provisions of that Act.
Expulsion orders are not the same as deportation, but they may have similar effects for the individuals affected by them. My assumption is that, in some way—possibly by order—whatever safeguards and provisions are available for the families of persons deported will be available for persons subject to expulsion orders. It would appear right that they should be.
I am sure that this is a point which the Government will have considered. It would allay some anxiety if the answer could be put on the record, either now or at some convenient stage before we part with the Bill.

Sir M. Havers: There is one matter, of which I have given notice, about which I should like reassurance. We have been told by the Home Secretary that those who are made subject to exclusion orders will be kept in custody. I foresee circumstances in which an exclusion order has been made, the person against whom it has been made has been kept in custody, and then the Special Branch or the police express doubts about the validity of the information laid against him.
Knowing the view that the Home Office always takes in these circumstances—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would take the same view—the matter by then having been referred to him under Clause 4, he might decide that it would be right to release the man, at least while these matters were further investigated. Probably he would be released on terms providing for him to report daily or twice daily to a police station, and probably providing for him to reside at a specified address during the time required for the Home Secretary to receive advice about these matters. If he went to a hotel, to a hostel, or to stay with friends and those people knew, as they obviously would, that he was a person against whom an exclusion order had been made, under subsection 8(c), those who harboured him—they would be harbouring—would be committing an offence and would have no defence to it. I am sure that that was not intended. It may be that that would be an exceptional case, but it is right that reassurance should be given now by the Minister or by the

Attorney-General that in those circumstances there would be no prosecution. It would be a case in which the Attorney-General would have to give leave.
4.45 a.m.
It is unsatisfactory merely to have an assurance from a Law Officer that no prosecution would follow. People would like to know that no offence had been committed, which would be the proper way. I appreciate the difficulties which arise with the speed of this legislation, but I should like some assurance of that kind from either the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked about families and was good enough to say that he would appreciate a reply either now or at some later stage. The point that he made will certainly be considered. I undertake that, as requested, the answer will be put on the record, I hope, before very long.
If the situation to which the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) were to arise, I should have to consider very carefully whether it would be proper for me to exercise my right to consent to prosecution. However, in practice, I am informed that situation is not likely to arise. There is no provision whereby a man against whom an exclusion order has been made and where it is being considered can be released on what is the equivalent of bail. In practice, during the consideration of his representation, he would be kept in custody. In a case of that kind my right hon. Friend has decided that the evidence placed before him by the police must be sufficient to justify an exclusion order prima facie. Therefore, the equivalent of bail would not be appropriate while considering whether he could properly put an end to the exclusion order. It must therefore follow that the kind of case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred could not arise. I might almost go so far as to say that such a case could never arise, but I should not say "never". If the odd case were to arise, the answer would be the one that I have given relating to the exercise of my own powers.

Sir M. Havers: I am not altogether satisfied with that reply. I can understand that the situation is unlikely


to arise, but it does not seem enough to say that the Attorney-General would give consideration to it. If a man were properly released from custody for the duration of the exclusion order while his case was being considered, an undertaking should be given now by the Attorney-General that in such circumstances no criminal proceedings would follow. Otherwise one would have to advise anybody who might be giving shelter properly to that man not to do it, which must be wrong.

The Attorney-General: I can give that undertaking, but I do not think that such a situation will arise. However, on the assumption that someone were released by the Secretary of State while his case was being considered, it would be wrong to prosecute anybody for harbouring him during the period of his release and I would not consent to such a prosecution.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Hooley: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 4, line 40, leave out from 'frivolous' to end of line 4 on page 5 and insert:
'refer the matter to the Appeal Tribunal set up in accordance with the next following paragraph:—
(5)(a) An appeal against an exclusion order may be made to an Appeal Tribunal consisting of three persons nominated for this purpose by the Lord Chancellor;
(b) the tribunal may revoke or confirm the exclusion order;
(c)the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding and subject to no further appeal; and
(d) no further exclusion order may be made against a person whose appeal has been upheld by the Tribunal"'.

The Chairman: With this we are to take the following:

Amendment No. 55, in page 4, line 39, leave out from "shall" to end of line 4 on page 5, and insert:
'refer the matter to the Appeal Tribunal set up in accordance with the next following paragraph:—

(5)(a) An appeal against an exclusion order may be made to an Appeal Tribunal consisting of three persons nominated for this purpose by the Lord Chancellor;
(b) the tribunal may revoke or confirm the exclusion order;
(c) the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding and subject to no further appeal; and
(d) no further exclusion order may be made against a person whose appeal has been upheld by the Tribunal"'.

Amendment No. 67, in page 5, line 4, at end add:
'(7) An appeal from the Secretary of State's decision shall lie on a point of law to the Divisional Court.'
and New Clause 5—"Independent Tribunals "—
'The Secretary of State shall establish a tribunal independent of the police to review allegations of abuse by persons who have been detained under section 7 of this Act'.

I have agreed that if a separate Division is required on new Clause 5 it can be granted.

Mr. Hooley: I regard this as a matter of considerable substance because it provides for a formal appeal arrangement against any decision by the Secretary of State to exclude a person from Great Britain.
The Home Secretary made it clear earlier in the day that he felt that no formal provision for appeal should be made. I cannot share that view. The power of exclusion that we are writing into the Bill is not unprecedented in an absolute sense—I take the Home Secretary's point that a similar power was included in the 1939 Act—but it is virtually unprecedented in the social behaviour of this country, and it gives the Secretary of State power to deprive a person of his normal domicile and require him—or her—to reside 100, 200 or even 400 miles from his home, family, relatives and place of employment.
It is a sweeping and considerable power, and although I am sure it would be exercised by my right hon. Friend with great care there is, nevertheless, a fundamental principle in a democratic system of government that an appeal against actions by the executive should lie with some independent body. I cannot accept there is a genuine appeal or a genuine check on executive authority if the Minister making the original decision is the Minister to whom the person expelled


must make representations if he wishes to have the order varied in any way.
I accept that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to seek advice from another set of persons if representations are made to him that an exclusion order has been wrongly made, or made on insufficient grounds, or that the evidence laid before him was incorrect, or is found at a later stage to be incorrect, but I cannot accept that that is sufficient in a society in which we are accustomed to provide a check not on an arbitrary and unjust act—of which I should not accuse my right hon. Friend—but against error, against wrong information on which the original decision was based.
I cannot accept that the Home Secretary, who has such enormous responsibilities and such a tremendous weight of decisions to make in so many different spheres can adequately discharge the task of appeal as well as the original onerous task of taking these decisions to exclude a person from what, in effect, may well be his home country. It is therefore important to create an independent appeal body.
I do not have legal qualifications and it is possible that the form of tribunal set out in the amendment is not altogether the best solution, although I hope that my right hon. Friend will not argue that a body set up by the Lord Chancellor specifically for this purpose would be any less concerned with the security of the State and the abolition of terrorism than he is himself.
The members of the body would be persons of sufficient authority and sense of responsibility to command the confidence of the whole community, so that if they sought—it would be unusual—to set aside or revoke or over-rule a decision of his it would be only on the weightiest grounds and after thorough consideration of all the facts of the case.
So although my right hon. Friend may argue that in this matter his authority alone should prevail, both in terms of the initial decision and in terms of an appeal, that is not an argument which I would accept, nor one to weigh against the important principle of having some independent judgment over the power of the executive in relation to the liberty of the individual.
I am not talking about matters which will go through the courts. Those subject to an exclusion order will not be tried by a court and will have no right to appear before a court. There will be only the right of the Secretary of State to make an order and the arrangements whereby a person who feels an order to be unjust or improper can appeal to the person who made the order for a variation or revocation.
I accept that this is exceptional legislation to combat a ruthless guerrilla enemy, but I am not convinced that the House should pass such legislation without a safeguard of this kind. The amendment would not diminish the Secretary of State's power or that of the State to combat terrorism or to deal with the circumstances we have been discussing.

Mr. John Prescott: I should like to direct my remarks to Amendment No. 55. It has been made amply clear tonight, especially by the agreement not to divide, that the Bill is essential, but there arc strong disagreements about aspects of it. The debate has illustrated that a number of our fears were well-founded.
5.0 a.m.
We are dealing in this clause with how to protect innocent people who may well be caught up in these extraordinary powers. We stress the concern that exists about the powers of arrest and detention, because those will probably be the first actions to be taken under the Bill when enacted. There were a number of amendments to Clause 7 which we would have liked to have brought to the Committee's attention, because there are serious misgivings about that provision also, but to remain in order I will speak to new Clause 5.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has been vigilant for a long time in attempting to get private legislation through in this area. We present the House of Commons tonight with an opportunity to fit into the Bill a provision for an independent procedure.
Hon. Members will accept that the number of complaints about the activities of the police have been increasing. The number of convictions regarding certain police irregularities have increased. This should make us reflect that the police are


human and they make mistakes. They are given considerable powers by Parliament to carry out responsibilities on our behalf. They are put in a privileged position.
We in Parliament must be concerned just as much with protecting subjects to whom the laws apply as we must be concerned with apprehending terrorists and deterring acts of terrorism.
The Home Secretary said on Second Reading that these powers are wide and extraordinary to deal with what was, perhaps, an extraordinary situation. In the Home Secretary's words, these powers are Draconian. They extend the powers of arrest without warrant and detention. In certain cases they allow arrest without warrant and detention on reasonable suspicion. Serious misgivings and doubts were expressed earlier about the consequences of Clause 1(6).
However, as I said before, the Bill is acceptable as a necessary measure, with the qualifications we wish to make. I, like other hon. Members, think that it is as if we are embarking on an escalator, that this is the first step on a tragic path that we seem to be embarked upon. We are dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause. This is not the appropriate occasion to develop this theme, except to say that, as we are embarked upon this exercise, we perhaps would have done better to give considerably more thought to the only available alternative, namely, the withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland.
As we are not dealing with that question but only with what is in the Bill, we must bear in mind that we shall be making the IRA illegal, which means that its members will certainly go underground. We shall have to depend on obtaining considerably more information from informants, agents provocateurs, spies, people who are paid to provide information to the authorities and whose reliability cannot be automatically accepted.
Clause 1(6), which we hope will be withdrawn later tonight, makes it an offence to be in possession of certain literature or documents. Such a provision can be used by the police as a means of exercising pressure when attempting to apprehend terrorists, and this may have the result of an entirely innocent person being dealt with unjustly.
All the measures in the Bill, whether to do with screening, photographing, fingerprinting, apprehending or excluding, are dependent on the availability of secret information either to the Home Secretary in considering appeals against exclusion or to magistrates and the police in deciding whether to detain or arrest people. Most of these activities will be concentrated on the Irish Catholic community. That is inevitable, and because of that there is a greater risk of mistakes being made in their case. That is why we must be concerned about how the community might react if it feels a case is not being handled properly, if it feels that someone has been excluded wrongly or on wrong information, or if it feels that someone has been held by the police more times than is necessary. These things will cause irritation.
If there is a complaint against the police the police will conduct their own inquiry. That is unfortunate because complainants might feel that they will get no great satisfaction from such a system. Of course, that is not restricted only to this legislation. Every hon. Member must have considerable experience of constituents being dissatisfied with the way the police have conducted inquiries. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has accepted the need for an independent element in police inquiries and so we are not breaking new ground. As things stand there is a risk of inflaming a delicate situation.
Without going into too much detail, and as an example of what I mean, a report has been published today by Deputy Commissioner Starritt into the Lennon murder. That inquiry raised difficult problems for Parliament and the courts into which we shall have to look. The man who conducted that inquiry into the death of someone who was caught up with the IRA and who was involved with the delicate matters this Bill is designed to deal with—and I do not reflect on Mr. Starritt's integrity—was a Belfast Protestant who has brothers in the RUC and was in charge of the West End police station at which the police officer Challenor—who was accused of planting evidence—was stationed. I do not seek to cast doubts on Mr. Starritt in any way. but it is likely to be interpreted in a sensitive situation by the Catholic community—and there has been more than


one example of it—as not being an independent inquiry, whatever we may feel about it.
The Commissioner who appointed the inquiry, appointed a man who has a number of problems in this sensitive area, and in order to avoid problems and not put the police in these difficulties there should be an independent element to deal with these matters. If that is not done the IRA will begin to exploit that bad feeling and will begin to grow in those areas in which it can operate. It happened in Ireland and there is no reason to believe it will not happen here. The IRA will argue that it alone can protect the Catholics in this country, and that is the beginning of a very difficult road indeed.
I have heard it said that the Catholics will welcome the Bill. I reflect that at one stage our troops were welcomed in Northern Ireland. It is crucial that our law is seen to be fair to all. It must be concerned to protect the innocent and provide a just complaints procedure.
Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for erby, North (Mr. White-head) on 30th July the Home Secretary said:
It is my view that an effective independent element, commanding public confidence, must be brought into operation while a complaint is being dealt with—both before the decision is taken whether to bring disciplinary action and, in sufficiently serious cases, in the hearing of any disciplinary charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1974: vol. 878, c. 144.]
The argument is accepted. It is crucial that this legislation embodies this principle. To go forward with these extraordinary powers without bringing in extraordinary means of protection is wrong. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to argue that he has to discuss this with the police—as he has been doing for almost a year. The principle is known. We can include it in the Bill and we should not do anything less than that.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move Amendment No. 67——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak to that amendment but he cannot move it. An amendment is already before the Committee.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Home Secretary will address himself in this context to the issue of appeals generally.

Many of us share the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and feel that for the Committee to grant powers to the right hon. Gentleman on such a scale without providing an appeals mechanism would be a disservice both to the present situation and any future consideration of similar measures.
I ask the Home Secretary to look carefully at the kind of machinery which his hon. Friend suggested and at the more limited proposals I have in mind. I recognise, as he said, that executive decision is involved here and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the sort of procedure he envisages involves executive decision. I can understand his reluctance to entrust such a decision to a tribunal or quasi-judicial body. However, I ask him to consider that these reservations are held strongly and are the sort he would have expressed had he been on the back benches or speaking for the Opposition. They represent a case for considering whether he should have the discipline of a body to which to refer or whether he ought, at least in matters of law, to look to the Divisional Court to see whether he is acting within the law.

Mr. Whitehead: I wish to refer to new Clause 5 and to make a passing reference to the amendments to Clause 4. The new clause deals essentially with procedure under Clause 7, which we have yet to discuss, but which gives reason for considerable concern to my hon. Friends and myself. I hope my right hon. Friend will take seriously what has been said about the need for an independent review procedure. He will recollect that this has been increasingly accepted of latter days by the Police Federation and other police authorities as a means of seeing that there shall be conspicuous fairness in the implementation of the law and that the police shall not be seen to be judge and jury in their own case when dealing with complaints under, for example. Section 49 of the Police Act.
My right hon. Friend will recollect that this was the view of the minority report of the Royal Commission set up in 1959. More important, because of the community with which we are dealing in this Bill, it was the view of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, chaired by Mr. Deedes, the former Member for Ashford. That committee,


which reported in 1972, having considered the extremely tense relations at that time between a certain section of the immigrant community and the police in this city above all recommended in Paragraph 333
that the Secretary of State take urgent steps to introduce a lay element into inquiries into complaints against the police, possibly by setting up independent tribunals to consider appeals by complainants or police officers dissatisfied with police inquiries into complaints.
It seems that that is essential now that we are dealing with another immigrant community. It is essential if we are to adopt the measures which the police will be empowered to employ under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. If they are to use the powers of arrest and detention given to them under Clause 7 it is crucial that we have some form of independent procedure to which they can refer and in which they will have confidence.
5.15 a.m.
I now turn to Clause 4 and the amendments relating to it. Although I accept that my right hon. Friend must have the power of executive decision regarding the orders which he is making under Clause 4, the House needs to know much more about the right of appeal over and beyond the orders. Clause 4(4) says:
Where representations are duly made under this section, the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the grounds to be frivolous, refer the matter for the advice of one or more persons nominated by him.
In the context of the amendments, what on earth does "frivolous" mean? How can there be a frivolous complaint about so serious a matter as an exclusion order? Who are the one or two persons who might be nominated by the Secretary of State and who might advise him upon these matters? I can see that it may be impossible to implement the amendments and to have an independent tribunal of three persons sitting in judgment to advise the Secretary of State. However, I remind the Secretary of State that most local authorities, looking back upon Regulation 18B in the Second World War and the implementation of Article 14B in the First World War, came to the conclusion that it would have been better if there had been some recourse to independent tribunals.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he is prepared to see parallel to the implementation of this

legislation the introduction of the procedures which he promised me on the last day of the previous Parliament in the reply which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I understand that that cannot be done now, but it is essential that it shall be done in the term of this emergency legislation. It is no good our saying that we shall consider the need for these procedures again on review in six months. They must be set up now. The undertaking that I am looking for from my right hon. Friend is that he will set in motion the procedures for the setting up of the tribunals along the lines that he promised in July. If that is done I believe that we have some chance of making the procedures under this proposed legislation acceptable and seen conspicuously to be fair to the section of the immigrant community which will feel alienated and under suspicion as a result of the passing of this legislation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Everyone must hope that this legislation will stop further killings. However, we must all fear that it might well lead to injustice and produce new terrorists. I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on Amendment No. 37 although I suggest that it is a little more logical to consider Amendment No. 55. If we are to ask an independent body to do the judging then surely the Home Secretary should not have to judge whether or not the representations are frivolous. I agree that it is extremely important that someone should not be making the orders and then judging whether they have made them fairly.
If anything in this legislation goes far beyond existing practice and erodes civil rights, it is Clause 7. The phrase
A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects …
must cause grave concern. It is a purely subjective judgment on the part of the constable and is most difficult to test. It would have been far better had the clause provided that a constable must have reasonable grounds to suspect somebody. That would provide something which could be tested and considered.
I should like to point out that Clause 7(1)(b) is not tied to Northern Ireland.
Terrorism to most people involves extremely violent acts, such as bombing, but the Bill provides a definition of "terrorism "which brings in the word "violence". However, there are many things which, though not terrorist activities, I regard as violent. I regard a large number of people shouting threateningly as "violent". If we accept the definition in the Bill, there are many other circumstances in which somebody could be accused of being a terrorist. Therefore. I suggest that sub-paragraph (b) is very dangerous since it goes further than the intentions of the legislation, which is to deal with the specific problem of Northern Ireland.
Clause 7(2) deals with the question of extending powers of arrest and of detaining people without their having to be brought before the courts. The major matter for concern in that respect is whether the Judges' Rules are adhered to. In recent years many people have been gravely concerned about adherence or otherwise to the Judges' Rules. The situation requires an independent body which would be able to oversee the situation and to see that the Judges' Rules are applied so that people may see that justice is done.
Finally, I am disturbed that the provisions of the Bill may overrule the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act. It is extremely dangerous that we should be seeking to detain young people under the age of 17 for up to seven days. This is another area which requires a monitoring body to oversee the situation. Therefore, I hope that the new clause will be incorporated in the Bill to provide a safeguard against the erosion of civil liberties.

Mr. Bidwell: Although we all realise that we are here this morning discussing this measure because of the horror perpetrated in Birmingham, and although we all appreciate the necessity for a Bill of this nature in present circumstances, I must emphasise that we are giving enormous powers to policemen. We are giving those powers not just to the Home Secretary, but to police officers. We are well aware of much evidence in some quarters of police malpractices. That is why there has for a long time been an element of progressive thought that we should have some kind of inquiry system—as my hon. Friend the Member for

Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, so that the police are not seen as judge and jury in their own cause—beyond the present police system of investigating allegations of this kind themselves.
I am aware, too, of what my right hon. Friend said when we had our debate at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. I am well aware that in reply to this debaie he may say that he cannot accept that he can bring in this new machinery of investigation into allegations against the police consistently or in conformity with the Bill and that a little more time and study are needed.
Contrary to the belief that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seemed to have at earlier stages of these events during the last few days, the police themselves, through their organisation the Police Federation, have expressed in principle acceptance of this extra machinery. We therefore live in anticipation and hope that it can be achieved.
The minimum terms that we can accept at this stage of the debate are that my right hon. Friend will be able to reply that he will accept the principle of a tribunal system which is outlined in part of the amendments that are now before us. Mistakes will be made; members of the police forces are human beings of variable qualities. We all know that our policemen are wonderful and that some are more wonderful than others. By the nature of the Bill, the police have to go into action as a result of extended powers based upon extended suspicion. Many would be apt to say that they are pretty well being given free rein and a free hand, such is the gravity of the situation arising from the Birmingham horror.
We shall be coming to the question of exclusion orders, which from the point of view of detention and other acts short of charge and trial is the extreme proposal of the Bill—that is, the ability to exclude from Great Britain at least anyone whom the Home Secretary thinks it is necessary to exclude and who apparently, if he has not had more than 20 years' residence here, is open to that exclusion.
In passing, although I did not join in the earlier debate I was prone to accept at least the idea of reciprocity, because I believe that in general terms these


extra powers have to be taken because of the gravity of the situation. None of us, however, can come here with any glee or great welcome at what we are now doing. We are plunging greatly into the unknown.
In the case of internment, which is not yet proposed in Great Britain itself, there is a system of appeals. This takes me back a few years to the time when I visited Long Kesh and Crumlin Road Prison, at the time the all-party delegation went out there to investigate allegations of torture. I think it was in the 1969 period when internment was first put into effect. It was in my view a tragic mistake that many of those affected were not IRA men, but were on the periphery, people in favour of the republican cause. At that stage internment applied to Catholic workers and many Socialist opponents of the Unionist regime, driven into the area of terrorist activity, terrorist politics, which I have always deeply deplored.
I spent some time in the internment camp trying to talk many of those young people out of that kind of development. Even there, a system of appeal was in operation, but they would not take advantage of it. Many of them wrote to me at the time, and I passed their letters on to the Home Secretary. They considered that they were martyrs, but in the end many of them lodged appeals. I understand that there is a backlog of appeals.
5.30 a.m.
We accepted the principle of a system of appeals against the emergency powers there. The Bill can be said to provide the Great Britain version of emergency powers. Appeals to a tribunal machinery are indispensable here, though the wording of the amendments may not be perfect.
I say to the Ulster Unionists and others in the Conservative ranks in the House that the Bill could well extend to measures required not merely against what we consider to be the IRA but to counter-terrorism. There are elements of that the whole time. A petrol bomb was thrown at an Irish pub in my constituency in the London Borough of Ealing following the outrage in Birmingham. Another outrage could well lead to more such activities, unorganised and

organised. We would expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to place on his proscribed list any organisations concerned. He would have to do so.
However, I am optimistic, because we would not have in this country a polarised situation, in which terrorists can easily get away with it. That is why arrests have been made in connection with the Birmingham outrage. There will be greater vigilance by the populace.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend only in one respect. When he first proposed the Bill he used certain words which suggested that the whole heavy weight rested on the police. Certainly, a great burden rests on them, and mistakes will be made. But they will not succeed unless they have widespread community support. The community will have to be informers if the police are to succeed. If they go about the job in an arbitrary way, they will make mistakes, even with community support. That is why a tribunal machinery is necessary.

Miss Jo Richardson: In the opinion of some of my hon. Friends and me, Amendment 55 is a slight improvement on Amendment 37, because it would exclude from subsection (4) the words:
unless he "—
the Secretary of State—
considers the grounds to be frivolous".
I am not a lawyer, I have no legal training, and it may well be that the word "frivolous" has a special legal meaning not known to me. However, I have asked a number of Members for their definition of the word and each has given a different answer. Therefore, to leave to one man the definition of what might be a frivolous complaint—a complaint of abuse—is not good enough, and we should like this provision to be taken out as well.
I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not look sympathetically on the amendments. He has said many times that he does not want to infringe more than is absolutely essential the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens. The best way of ensuring that is to remove any idea that he may be prosecutor, judge and jury. It is true that Clause 4(4) provides that he will
refer the matter for the advice of one or more persons nominated by him.


But there is no indication of who those people will be. There is no indication whether they will be the same one or two people or in each case a different set of one or two people. Will they be friends? I assume that they will be people whose judgment the Secretary of State feels he can trust. But how much better it would be to have an independent tribunal to which all such cases could be referred whose members were nominated by the Lord Chancellor. That would be a simple way of dealing with the matter, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it sympathetically.
I wish to refer to new Clause 5. Many Members have said that there could well be abuses of Clause 7 by the police. The police are being given much wider powers in this Bill, such as the power of arrest without warrant, together with a considerable lengthening of the period of detention without charge. These provisions make many Members and many people outside very unhappy. As Members of Parliament, we have all had experience of cases concerning constituents in which we have complained about the attitude and behaviour of the police. I have always felt that it was not quite right that, when a complaint was made about police action, the police should investigate it. An independent tribunal should always look into the question of police actions.
I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will accept the new clause and that he will set a precedent by setting up an independent tribunal to which cases concerning police action can be referred. I trust that the Committee will consider these matters sympathetically.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have listened carefully to the speeches made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Committee will agree that we have managed to get along fairly well without too much disagreement, and I hope that we shall so proceed when we return to a point with which we must deal. However, I must leave the Committee under no misapprehension: I am not able to accept the amendment or the new clause.
I will deal first with the amendment. It seeks to introduce a judicial procedure into the making of exclusion orders. The position on exclusion orders is as follows. A person against whom an order is made

is guaranteed under Clause 4(3) the right to make representations against it to the Secretary of State. He has 48 hours in which to exercise his right, and, under the provisions of the supplementary order, the exclusion order cannot be put into effect until the person concerned has had the opportunity to exercise this right. Unless the Secretary of State considers that the representations are made on frivolous grounds, he must refer them to advisers whom he nominates.
We perhaps use the expression "frivolous" rather loosely in a non-legal sense, but in a legal sense "frivolous or vexatious" means that there is plainly no substance in the grounds given in the representations. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for that definition, which I find satisfactory.
I have carefully considered the sort of people whose advice I should seek. It is not right to announce names at this stage, but I shall, of course, announce them to the House. They are not intended to be secret names. The body will not deal with individual cases but will be a standing rather than an ad hoc body of people.
Why cannot that be done by means of a formal tribunal? In making exclusion orders matters of grave national security are involved. If the Bill is to be effective—and we have all gone to a lot of trouble to get it through—we cannot be inhibited from getting rid of terrorists by inability to use highly sensitive information. Advice must, therefore, be sought from people to whom secrets affecting national security can be entrusted. No doubt they could be provided by the Lord Chancellor. I do not think that he will be keen to provide them, and they can equally well be provided by me. Much more to the point, there can be no question of open proceedings or the public presentation of evidence.
At the same time, it is desirable in this field as in others that individual liberties are as far as possible safeguarded, and those to whom representations against exclusion orders are made must be men of reputation whose impartiality is beyond question. That I will endeavour to ensure.

Mr. John Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend explain the remarks he made this afternoon about legal representation? If he restricts


the right of appeal in the Bill, will individuals be able to have legal assistance in drafting their grounds of appeal?

Mr. Jenkins: I will consider whether that can be done, but there cannot be judicial proceedings. There can be no question of open proceedings or the public presentation of evidence. I cannot give an absolute assurance that legal advice can be sought in drafting the grounds of appeal, but I will consider it.

Mr. Whitehead: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a person arrested under an exclusion order according to Clause 7(1)(c) might well be held for 48 hours without access to legal advice? If so, how can he have access to legal advice in drawing up an appeal to the Secretary of State or his advisers?

Mr. Jenkins: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I see no reason why he should not have access to legal advice during this period. There are many areas of government in which the independent review of decisions taken on grounds of national security is a necessary safeguard against the infringement of the rights of the individual. The closest parallels are decisions taken on civil servants where there are risks to national security, and immigration decisions where national security calls for a person's exclusion.
Decisions are taken in those matters with a well-established machinery for obtaining independent advice, where the advisers are appointed exactly as I have described, but where it is necessary that the final decision should be taken by the Minister concerned in the light of. but not bound by, the advice given.
5.45 a.m.
I would not think it reasonable to tell the House that I was presenting an emergency Bill in order to deal with the gravest terrorist situation we have ever confronted and then to propose executive powers less powerful, less effective, than those which apply in cases in which I and every other Home Secretary have been able, wherever someone's entry is non-conducive to the public good, to make a decision, or those which are applied when civil servants are involved in matters of possible breach of national security. What is concerned here goes much more to the heart of our national

life and danger to the structure of our society than the issues dealt with in that way. If these powers are to be effective at all, basically, I must retain as much executive power here over the matters I have mentioned.
New Clause 5 relates to detention, and similar arguments against a tribunal apply. It must be remembered that apart from the first 48 hours, when, broadly speaking, the police are in practice able to arrest and hold at present, the further five days beyond that is done by my authority and not by the authority of the police.
Therefore, if that is the exact subject of inquiry, it is, as it were—not that I object to it—an inquiry into me rather than into the police, and I do not think, therefore, that it pinpoints the question of independent investigation as far as the police are concerned.
Assuming that we accepted new Clause 5, I am not sure what the position would be. I have said firmly that I am in favour of such a proceeding as it proposes, but it is a complicated matter to approach. One wants to carry as much police opinion with one as one can, although I have said, independently of that factor, that I shall proceed in this direction, and more rapidly than has been done before. But the matter is very complicated and requires full-scale legislation. There can be no question of doing it without legislation, and new Clause 5 would not be a practical or appropriate method of proceeding.
I have assured the Police Federation and the public that this would be done by legislation and debated on the Floor of the House. If I were to accept new Clause 5, I do not think the Bill could go into operation until I had carried through detailed legislation to deal with this 10-year-old problem, which has perplexed the House for so long, and it cannot be suggested that we should sit all night to pass emergency legislation to deal with the grave situation we face, and then say that an important part of it should be held up while we go through a leisurely process of legislation, as we would be bound to in order to deal with a very great problem.

Mr. Whitehead: With repect to my my right hon. Friend, the point at issue is not whether this can be introduced now


but whether it can be introduced within the lifetime of this emergency legislation. Although I can see that all these consultations have to be carred out, there have been two Home Office working parties on this matter in the political lifetime of three Home Secretaries. The matter has been extensively discussed.

Mr. Jenkins: 1 was not satisfied with the result of the Home Office working party I inherited. Nor would my hon. Friend have been. I decided to introduce my own proposals, which I believe will be more satisfactory to my hon. Friends. I hope I will not be blamed for refusing to accept inherited proposals that I did not like.
I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantee that this legislation will come into operation during the lifetime of this Bill. I shall need a few more months to get the legislation into shape. I shall then be anxious to proceed with it, but it must go through this House in the proper way. My hon. Friend knows that there is great pressure on Government legislative time. But I shall not object if, after the few months which I need to get it ready, he and other hon. Members press me about when legislation will be forthcoming. I shall be anxious to get on with it as quickly as possible. But there can be no question of pinning this emergency legislation to its being carried into effect.
I am anxious to meet as many issues as possible, but I must say firmly that I cannot meet them on either the amendment or the new clause.

Mr. Beith: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but has he seen fit to rule out the possibilities advanced in Amendment No. 67?

Mr. Jenkins: As regards Amendment No. 67, the arguments against having an appeal to the Divisional Court are the same as those applying to a special judicial tribunal. As the Bill stands, it will always be open to a person against whom an exclusion order is made to apply to the Divisional court for a prerogative order if he claims that the Secretary of State acted outside his powers. That is the position of the Bill. But, as regards bringing in the Divisional Court in any

other sense, the objections would apply still more strongly than to the special judicial tribunal suggested in Amendment No. 37.

Mr. Prescott: When my right hon. Friend says that there would be complications, are they solely concerned with drafting the principle at the end of the period, and not just with consultation, which has been going on for a long time? If that is the sole issue, many of us feel that this is an integral part of this piece of legislation and that to advance without it would be a major disaster.

Mr. Jenkins: It is impossible not to advance without it. Assuming that I was able to say that the consultations were completed, I have told the various police bodies that we hope to come to an agreed solution and that they can have a few more months in which to consider. So I am committed there. But even if I had a scheme cut and dried. I should have to find time for it as a normal Home Office Bill. How I could make this emergency legislation dependent upon it, I cannot understand.

Mr. Hooley: I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend should have ruled out absolutely the principle of an independent appellate arrangements against a decision for exclusion. As indicated previously, this is virtually a new power which has not been exercised before. I do not see how we can get beyond the basic objection to the fact that the Minister who makes the initial decision is also responsible for the review.
I accept the arguments about security and confidentiality, but there is nothing in the amendment which requires the appeal tribunal to hear cases or to take evidence in public. The essential feature is that it shall be independent of the Minister making the original decision. I believe that my right hon. Friend and the Government will in due course regret the absence of an independent appeal tribunal. For obvious reasons, I do not press this as the only or the ideal form.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman desire leave to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Hooley: No.

Question put.That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 51, Noes 218.

Division No. 17.1
AYES
[5.58 a.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roderick, Caerwyn


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Canavan, Dennis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, I. M.
Kinnock, Nell
Sedgemore, B.


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Lee, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cook, Robin F. (Edln C)
Litterlck, Tom
Sillars, James


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfleld N)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Delargy, Hugh
Marshall, James (Leicester)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Edge, Geoffrey
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkinson, John


Flit, Gerard (Belfast)
Mendelson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Mlkardo, Ian



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley
Mr, Frank Hooley and


Gould, Bryan
Ovenden, John
Mr. Sydney Bidwell


Koyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Parry, Robert



Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Eadle, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Archer, Peter
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Lomas, Kenneth


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
English, Michael
MacFarquhar, R.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)
Maclennan, Robert


Bates, All
Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)
Macmillan, Rt Hn M. (Farnham)


Bean, Robert E.
Evens, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Magee, Bryan


Biggs-Davison, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mahon, Simon


Bishop, Edward
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Ken


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Marquand, David


Boolhroyd, Miss Betty
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Boyden. James (Bish Auck)
Freeson, Reginald
Mates, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce
Mayhew, Patrick


Brotherton, Michael
Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Pr)
Glnsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)
Glyn, Or Alan
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Harlngey)
Graham, Ted
Molyneaux, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Campbell, Ian
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Nel[...]
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Carson, John
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Carter, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)
Murray, Ronald King


Cartwright, John
Hatton, Frank
Noble, Mike


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Havers, Sir Michael
Oakes, Gordon


Cohen, Stanley
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hn Stanley


Craig. Rt Hon W. (Belfast)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr David


Cralgen, J. M. (Glasgow. M)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth)
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham, St)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, James (Kingston W)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Radice, Giles


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roper, John


Dempsey, James
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Dormand, Jack
Judd, Frank
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kllfedder, James
Ryman, John


Dunlop, J.
Lamble, David
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry
Selby, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunwoody. Mrs. Gwyneth
Lane, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)




Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewlsh)
Tlerney, Sydney
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk)
Tinn, James
Willay, Rl Hon Frederick


Silverman, Julius
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea)


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Rt Hn Shirley (Hertford)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrlngton)


Snape, Peter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Stainton Keith
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woodall, Alec


Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smlth, F)
 Ward, Michael
Woof, Robert


Stoddart, David
Watkins, David
Wrlgglesworth, Ian


Stott, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Weetch, Ken



Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, James (Glasgow, P)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)
Whitehead, Phillip

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed,

That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Lane: It is clear from that vote that we agree with the Home Secretary about sticking to the procedure of advisers rather than a judicial tribunal. The timing of this procedure, however, is not entirely clear. A person served with a notice has 48 hours to make representations. Does that mean that he has to despatch his representations or that they have to reach the Home Secretary in that period? I think that it is the former, but that should be made clear.
My second question relates to the second stage of the procedure, the calling together of the advisers. Nothing is said, understandably, about the limits, but may we take it that the advisers will be expected to give their advice with all due speed? That would be right in fairness to the individual and the public.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I can answer both questions in the affirmative.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 6

EXCLUSION ORDERS AGAINST PERSONS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES

Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 5, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are to discuss the following amendments:

No. 40, in page 5. line 39, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 41, in page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Powell: The object of the first two of these three amendments, and I imagine of the third as well, is to obtain an understanding of how it is intended that these provisions should work. We are dealing with exclusion orders made in relation to persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Some hon. Members present at any rate will recall from an earlier debate that such exclusion orders must be made for exclusion from the United Kingdom as a whole and that in applying to them the provisions of Clause 3 certain modifications are made. In particular, they are made to Clause 3(2), under which the Secretary of State is to have regard to what might be called the affinities, and Clause 3(4), which exempts a class of persons from the mischief of exclusion orders altogether.
Subsection (4), to which the amendments relate, provides for the manner in which the procedure for exclusion orders set out in Clause 3 is in detail to be modified when being applied to the exclusion orders from the United Kingdom of persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
My attention and that of my hon. Friends was attracted by paragraph (a) which makes it possible, for instance, to prescribe different periods of minimum residence in order to be clear of exclusion orders in regard to residence in Great Britain and in regard to residence in Northern Ireland.
It is not clear on the face of it why this should be so. Why should a person be exempt from exclusion from the United Kingdom when he has resided for, let us say, 15 years in Northern Ireland, whereas he would be exempt from exclusion from Great Britain only if he had resided there for 20 years? That appears to be a possible meaning of the words in paragraph


(a). As regards presence in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the same consideration seems to apply.
I therefore hope that we can have an explanation of why that sort of refinement is to be necessary in applying the general provisions to the exclusion of persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
In paragraph (b) we find that in the course of applying the order of which I am speaking, "subsection (2) above" can be excluded altogether. Subsection (2) says, amongst other things, that instead of Great Britain as the area to which affinity must be considered, the United Kingdom must be substituted. If that is so in principle, why should there be any cases where it is only the affinities to a territory outside Great Britain and not outside the United Kingdom which would come into question in the context of these exclusion orders?
I hope that I have said enough to show that at least one Member finds it not easy to understand the full purport of these two paragraphs. I hope that we can have some help from the Government.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lane: Our amendment No. 41 is a probing amendment designed to secure an explanation how the Government visualise the machinery working in practice. Perhaps it may be made clear at the same time, since we are dealing with those who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, to what extent and in which ways this is going beyond the procedure which already exists for the Immigration Act 1971.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I had better begin by confessing that I find Clause 6 the most difficult to understand. Some of the other clauses are fairly difficult to understand, but this is peculiarly difficult. It is a peg on which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can hang an order to exclude people who are not citizens from Northern Ireland as well as from Great Britain.
I am assured, and I say this in fairness to the draftsmen and myself, that the drafting would have been easier and simpler had it been possible to construct the Bill afresh from the start, and com-

plications arise from the fact that we could not.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked whether under subsection (4)(a) we were proposing to provide for different periods of ordinary residence for Great Britain and for the United Kingdom. I can give him the assurance that we are not. Subsection (4)(a) is intended only to enable the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to adapt references to Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is a very complicated piece of drafting and it is not faulty, but things would have been easier had we been able to start afresh without having to graft the new provisions on.
Any order laid by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be brought before the House in due course. The provision will enable a second "ring fence" to be erected around the United Kingdom in much the same way as it is around Great Britain.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged for the explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move, Amendment No. 44, in page 6, line 14, leave out 'five' and insert 'twelve'.
This is a probing amendment designed to discover how the Home Secretary arrived at the figures of 48 hours and five days. It seeks to substitute a total of 14 days for the quoted total of 7 bearing in mind the complications that can arise in investigations. We have heard of the great amount of investigation that had to take place, for example, following the Old Bailey and Aldershot bombings.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The answer to the hon. Member is that the power in Clause 7 is wholly exceptional. The normal period that the law allows a man to be held without charge, or before bringing him before a magistrate, is 24 hours, save in serious cases. In this instance we are extending that to a period of 48 hours with an extension for a


further five days. There is no proviso that it would be obligatory to bring a man before a magistrate at the end of the period. In a sense this would be an investigation period. Those quite unusual powers obviously have to be contained within the narrowest possible limits.
What has dictated a total of seven days rather than 14 is that the police say that that is an adequate period in which they could make proper investigation about someone who may be suspected of terrorism, so as to establish who he was and what was his background.

Mr. Stainton: I accept what the Minister of State says but I repeat what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson), an ex-Attorney-General. He emphasised the amount of evidence the police had to collect to establish their case at Aidershot against the Price sisters. One can also observe that in the Millhench case the police had little difficulty in detaining that individual for a period vastly in excess of seven days on various grounds. I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 6, line 25, leave out '53(3)' and insert '50(3)'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: I take this opportunity to raise a point about Clause 7(2) which provides that the detention for five days in addition to the 48 hours must be with the approval of the Secretary of State. I understand—and I raise the point now so that it can be publicly on the record—that the intention is that "the approval of the Secretary of State" means that it would be the approval of the Secretary of State personally and that these words do not mean what they would normally mean in a Bill—that a Home Office official could give approval in the name of, and therefore with the authority of, the Secretary of State.
It is understood that the Secretary of State personally cannot always be available. For example, he might be abroad.
In those circumstances one would understand a Home Office Minister deputising for him or another Secretary of State provided he was advised by the Home Office Minister deputising for the Home Secretary.
I want an assurance that either the Home Secretary or his next most senior Minister will have personally to approve each case. There might come a time if the Bill has to be renewed at the end of six months when we shall want to consider, in the light of the number of cases involved, whether it makes practical sense to continue with the arrangement. In a Bill which is to last for only six months in the first instance I think it is right that the personal approval of a Minister should be given so that he is aware at all times how many people are held under this unusual provision, thereby enabling him to keep a tight rein on the giving of authority for the five-day detentions.

Mr. Stainton: I have only one query, which turns on Clause 7(1)(b) and acts of terrorism. It is clear that Clause 7(1)(a) and (c) are specific matters. Does subsection (l)(b) refer to specific or general acts of terrorism? I am concerned about repetitive arrest. If subsection (1) (b)refers to general acts of terrorism or the preparation of such acts, it would be possible to arrive at repetitive arrest and an onerous situation being exploited by the police against an individual.

Mr. Whitehead: As I understand it, Clause 7 enables a constable to arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be guilty of an offence under Clause 1 or Clause 3. I am concerned about the interpretation of "reasonably" bearing in mind the famous dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Atkins in Liversidge v. Anderson, in which it was said that it appeared that the Home Secretary was interpreting the words "reasonable cause" to mean what he thought was reasonable cause. Is it the position that the constable making the arrest shall have only to say that he thinks he has reasonable cause? By what objective criteria will he have to prove that he had reasonable cause for making the arrest?
I understand that the procedures by which a person is detained under the powers provided by Clause 7 will not be changed in any significant degree. I


understand that the régime of interrogation will not be changed and that the Judges' Rules will apply. Will my right hon. Friend give some undertakings in the general sense of Clause 7 as to the degree to which interrogation will continue without caution under the existing Judges' Rules for a person held under these powers, particularly a person held not for two days but seven days after reference to the Secretary of State?
Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider two safeguards which I and my hon. Friends feel necessary if the clause is to become part of the Bill? First, will he consider—I think this matter was reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee—whether interrogation under these emergency powers should be tape recorded? There are important reasons for recording to take place. Second, is it possible for the Home Office administrative directions which accompany the Judges' Rules to be brought into this measure as a mandatory requirement? They could be speedily drafted and added to the Bill as a fresh schedule.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On Clause 7(1)(b) may I press for a reason why this one part of the Bill is not qualified to refer to Northern Ireland, whereas everywhere else in the Bill there is specific reference to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I shall seek to answer some of the points raised in this discussion, and the legal points I shall leave my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked about the personal approval of the Secretary of State. The answer to that is, alas, yes—alas, from my point of view, but perhaps not from anybody else's. As the provision is drafted it would be possible for an official to exercise these powers, but it is the intention that the Secretary of State or, if he is away, a Minister in the Home Office, or possibly another Secretary of State—although I think in this context a Home Office Minister would be more meaningful—will exercise them. There will be no question of there not being ministerial knowledge of exactly how many people are involved. The only exception is that

it might be necessary for an official to make a decision overnight in the event of something happening—a matter which which would be referred to the Minister the next morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port, North (Mr. Bennett) asked why Clause 7(1)(b) was not specifically related to acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I dealt with this point earlier in our proceedings in answer to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). Although it seems to me entirely reasonable in relation to Parts I and II and Clauses 1 and 3, since the decision has to be taken by the Secretary of State who should know what is happening, it does not seem reasonable to expect the constable who has to arrest some person
concerned in the commission, preparation of instigation of acts of terrorism
to be informed of all the political ramifications which may or may not be involved.

The Attorney-General: Questions were asked about the provision in Clause 7(1) relating to a constable who "reasonably suspects" somebody to be guilty of an offence. I do not think the phrase has any magical significance. It means that if a constable suspects somebody, he must have reasonable grounds for that suspicion.

Mr. Whitehead: Reasonable grounds presumptive to whom?

The Attorney-General: The constable must have reasonable grounds—in other words, this is the guidance which he must follow. If he does not have reasonable grounds for his suspicion and none the less arrests without warrant, he will be committing a civil wrong. The matter could come before the courts on an action by the person arrested. This is a normal way in which the statutes guide the police.
The second question concerned Clause 7(l)(b) whether the acts of terrorism referred to in the provision relating to
a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism
were specific acts of terrorism. It would not be right so to describe them. The power is justified as a result of the situation we face. One of the reasons for the grant of this power is that where the police have a suspicion on reasonable grounds that a person is concerned in the


commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, they may be able by detaining him to prevent those acts of terrorism from taking place. In many cases they will be unable to know until they have checked their suspicions what specific acts of terrorism might be involved. Without this power, therefore, it might well be that they would be unable to prevent a major act of terrorism simply because they did not know what specific acts the suspect had in mind.

Mr. Stainton: I related this matter to the possibility of repetitive arrest. This could be deployed—one hesitates to say this—by the police simply to exploit the 48 hours' arrest provision against an individual. The Attorney-General has confirmed that in Clause 7(1)(b) one is speaking about general acts of terrorism, a general attitude as compared with a specific act.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about acts of terrorism, I do not think that any general propensity, as it were, would suffice. What is necessary is that the constable should suspect on reasonable grounds that the person in question is concerned in either the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism even if he is not at that stage able to satisfy himself precisely what they are. There cannot be any question of arresting simply because a constable thinks" This is the sort of person who would be likely to commit acts of terrorism."
The next question concerned the safeguard of a person who is in custody. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the normal rules and safeguards in respect of persons held in custody by the police are to be observed by the police in the exercise of this power.

Mr. Whitehead: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are occasions when the Judges' Rules are not observed? We are dealing here with a category of person about whom the House and probably society in general are not too squeamish—that is, the suspected political terrorist. It is particularly necessary in these circumstances to make clear to the relevant authorities the conditions relating to interrogation and the provision of food and sleep and that physical violence is expressly forbidden. I have in mind some of the experiences

in the early days of the Army in Northern Ireland and the interrogation methods used there. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make this as clear as possible to the police authorities when this legislation has gone through?

The Attorney-General: I can certainly undertake that my right hon. Friend will make that absolutely clear.
My hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible for administrative rules to be added to the Bill, but plainly, in the timetable to which we are working, that is not possible. I hope that the undertaking I have given will be sufficient.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

CONTROL OF ENTRY AND PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL

Mr. Lane: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 6, line 36, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
I shall shortly seek leave to withdraw the amendment, because it has been overtaken by events. We tabled it with serious purpose before the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1974 was published in the past 24 hours. We did so because we were anxious to have movement controls in operation as soon as possible—that is, not merely a permissive power to the Secretary of State but virtually mandatory. As this has to be done, let it be done quickly. We have our answer in the new order, which we welcome. It is modelled largely on Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.
I am not trying to debate the order, which I hope will come before us later but I would mention Article 5. which refers to a
passport … or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship
Article 7 contains the requirement of landing and embarkation cards. The two articles together seem to go some way to meet the demands made by many speakers on both sides of the House for identity cards. I ask the Government Front Bench for a firm assurance that they will keep in mind the further step


that may be desirable of more full-blooded identity cards, particularly in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) said earlier. I hope that if the Government find it necessary to go further, in the light of the operation of these powers, and with this degree of documentation, they will not hesitate to ask the House for that extension.
My second point concerns the powers of search in the clause, elaborated on in the order. There was mention earlier of the need for a thorough search of vehicles to get at the arms and explosives regularly moving to and fro across the Irish Sea. Hon. Members on both sides of the House asked for assurances that explosives movement control in this country will also be tightened up still more, if necessary, in the even more serious situation we now face. The Minister of State did not cover that matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will give an assurance on it, because it has caused concern on both sides of the House.
My last point is about the police. The very elaborateness of the machinery rightly laid down in the order is yet another example of the extra demands that will be made on the police through all these provisions as a whole. We should like a clear statement that steps to strengthen the police, over and above what has already been done by both Governments will be taken as soon as possible.
There is a subsidiary point which concerns expense rather than manpower. It has been pointed out by some of my hon. Friends that the extra burden of administering the controls will fall on the local police services in the ports where most of the traffic runs. That will be expensive in terms of police manpower and cost, and it would not be fair that this national task should fall wholly on local finance. I hope that the point will be considered. We cannot expect an immediate answer, but will the Government be prepared to pay an extra police grant if it is found that these new duties are putting an unreasonable burden on local police forces?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, the amendment has become unnecessary. We hope that the order to which he referred will come into effect at midnight tonight.
I have said that my mind is not closed on the matter of identity cards. I listened with great interest to the striking maiden speech of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), to which many hon. Members have paid tribute.
He gave an example of an identity card. I should like to consider the cost and value of that and to discuss the matter with my advisers. My mind is not closed, but one must take professional advice on a matter of this sort, and that I shall do.
I regard the matter of explosives control, both into the country and within the country, as important and I will keep it under constant review.
6.45 a.m.
The Bill imposes certain additional manpower demands on the police. I do not think that they will be enormous demands, but they are additional demands and increase the need to bring the police up to strength of which the present Government, like the previous administration, are fully aware. Although the last year has not been good from this point of view, it has not been as bad as 1973.
I should like to consider without commitment the point about variation of grant according to particular burdens. If totally disproportionate burdens were put on certain forces, particularly small forces, the matter would have to be considered.

Mr. Lane: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I wish briefly to raise the question of the relationship between what is being enacted and the Immigration Act 1971, to which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has indirectly alluded two or three times.
Subsection (1) provides for
the examination of persons arriving in, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland …".
It is not limited to arrival in Northern Ireland by air or sea. It is a general provision and presumably therefore covers a power to provide for the examination of people arriving by land. I do not think that that is altered by the fact that the statutory instrument, which was provided


for us in draft, appears to make provision only for examination of people arriving by ship or aircraft. That may be because there is to be a corresponding Northern Ireland order to the order which we have in our possession, which contains no reference to arrival by land. However, the fact that in the clause power is taken to examine arrivals in Northern Ireland by land—that is, without qualification—raises the question of the relationship between what is proposed in the Bill and the Immigration Act.
It is well known that citizens of the Republic of Ireland are subject to the Immigration Act 1971, as they were to the Immigration Act 1962, and that this has hitherto been rendered a matter of theory only by the existence of the common travel area which is provided for by Section 1(3) of the Immigration Act 1971. The requirements which the Immigration Act imposes upon those who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on entry into the United Kingdom are not removed by the existence of the common travel area. The common travel area simply means that the consequential control is not applied.
By Clauses 6 and 8 I understand that we are making a breach in the common travel area, and the question arises whether the common travel area is not due for reconsideration. It has always presented a problem in the context of deportation, which applies to citizens of the Irish Republic who are not also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as it applies to aliens.
There is in Section 9(6) of the 1971 Act a power for the Secretary of State to exclude the Republic of Ireland from the common travel area by order for such purposes as may be specified in the order.
I might put the general question in specific form by inquiring whether the purposes of Clauses 6 and 8 and the orders to be made under them could not be conveniently served by an order under Section 9(6) of the Immigration Act 1971, limited to the purposes of the Bill. In general, the whole question of the common travel area and the control of entry into the United Kingdom across the land frontier will have to be considered, and the implementation of the Bill will force reconsideration upon us. I say that in no exclusive spirit towards the Irish Republic and its citizens, but simply because it

will be increasingly undesirable to operate legislation of this sort while still maintaining what will become more and more the fiction of the common travel area under the Immigration Act 1971.
I hope that I have said enough to direct the Minister who is to reply to the points I have in mind.

Mr. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very technical point but a matter of some substance. The correct answer is the one he divined. There is a difference between an order made under Clause 8 and an order made under Clause 6. An order under Clause 6 will have an effect upon the land frontier of Northern Ireland, but whether the common travel area is brought into question——

Mr. Powell: I do not understand why Clause 8 should have application only to arrivals by air or sea. It appears to be quite general and to include arrivals by land.

Mr. Lyon: The regulations which have been made under Clause 8 provide for landing and embarkation and for examination of people arriving in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but not specifically by land. Clause 6 is more pertinent to what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I come back to what I said in my wind-up speech in relation to the difference between the control exercised under the Bill in Great Britain on persons coming from Northern Ireland, and the control exercised under the Immigration Act in respect of foreign countries generally. One is really security control as distinct from immigration control, and the powers contained in Clauses 6 and 8 are related to security rather than to immigration.
With Clause 6, it is a question of an area to determine where the exclusions should be relevant. With Clause 8, it is a question of using powers for the purpose to search and detain people suspected of terrorism. But in neither case is the purpose of the check one of immigration, so although the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the common travel area at least has some limitation by reason of the Bill, it is not a limitation which calls into question the whole of the common travel area policy. Whether it would ever be called


into question by any further development is a matter for the future, but it is not called into question by this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman should also consider the question of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, which states:
An order may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State expedient as respects persons who enter or leave Northern Ireland by land, or who seek to do so.

Mr. Powell: Then I take it that there would be the intention in due course to make an order in pursuance of that paragraph?

Mr. Lyon: Mr. Lyon indicated assent.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Government could help by telling us what plans there are for controlling entry along the land frontier between the Republic and Northern Ireland. The order which is to come into effect from midnight tonight states that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. Clause 8 of the Bill refers to powers which examining officers have for searching ships and aircraft, "or elsewhere". As this is a serious matter, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us what steps are being taken to control entry from the Republic into Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it included in the order that certain official crossing places on the Republic-Northern Ireland border will be named, as the hon. Gentleman has named airports and other places in the order in referring to those leaving or entering Great Britain?

Mr. Lyon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be laying an order in which hon. Gentlemen will see the details of the questions they have in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 7, line 37, after "the", insert "threat of".

The Deputy Chairman: With this, we are to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 49, in page 7, line 37. after "of" insert "armed".

Amendment No. 50, in page 7, line 37. after "violence", insert "or kidnapping'.

Amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 37. leave out "for political ends" and insert
in Great Britain designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland".

Amendment No. 58, in page 7, line 38. after "any", insert "such".

Mr. Stainton: I am concerned about the definition of "terrorism". I suggest that it would not take a very adroit lawyer to interpret "terrorism". defined in the clause as meaning
… the use of violence for political ends",
as being what is now known as violent picketing.
The endeavours in these amendments are sparse. They might have gone on to ask about various other aspects in order to get a more specific concept of terrorism. The draftsman has had a shot. It is a shot in the dark. I want clarification.

Mr. Powell: It must be admitted that the definition of "terrorism" is unsatisfactory. We are but young in this kind of legislation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) said, this is a first shot. But I do not think that it is a successful first shot.
If a gang of ruffians were systematically to break up the public meetings held by a party at an election, that would be the use of violence for political ends. I do not think that that is what is meant by "terrorism". The violence could be used in pursuance of political ends even by threatening people systematically by rampaging through the streets in certain areas. Again, that would not be terrorism in the sense that we are discussing it in this context.
There must be a special quality when we assemble in our minds actions which would be properly described as "terrorist" which is missing from this definition. It is difficult to imagine terrorism without either the threat or the act of an assassination or murder. It is not merely violence which is implicit. It is murderous violence. What is more, it is not murderous violence conducted in the open by


formed bodies of men. Its essence is that it is murderous violence which strikes in the dark, as it were, and unsystematically from the point of view of the sufferers.
I will not elaborate on this. Everyone must feel that the definition in the Bill is most unsatisfactory as a definition of "terrorism". It is too wide and it is not sufficiently specific.

Mrs. Wise: A number of my hon. Friends and I are worried about the definition of "terrorism", and I draw attention to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. which seek to alter the definition by narrowing it and keeping it in context.
The reasoning behind the amendments is simply that, as we understand it, there is not at the moment any statutory definition of "terrorism". This would be the first one. If it is to be defined simply as
… the use of violence for political ends",
the definition could be used in other contexts. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, it is very unsatisfactory from that point of view.
In the present context, we all know, because of the circumstances from which these temporary provisions arise, the kind of thing with which they are intended to deal. As soon as we say simply that terrorism is violence for political ends, we open up enormous territories so far unexplored.
We feel that it is unsuitable, within the context of a temporary provisions Bill, to introduce a very wide definition of "terrorism" which could be used subsequently in other contexts. Therefore, we would urge that Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 be accepted. They do not in any way alter the substance of the Bill. They simply keep the definition of "terrorism" strictly tied to the circumstances surrounding these temporary provisions. By defining "terrorism" as meaning the use of violence
in Great Britain designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland",
we are keeping it strictly tied to this Bill and this Bill only. I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that this alternative definition is acceptable to him.

Mr. Mendelson: My concern is not strictly connected with tying the definition of "terrorism" to Northern Ireland.

As the whole Bill relates in substantial part to affairs connected with Northern Ireland, the position might be safeguarded. However, even if it were so interpreted—the merit of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) means that we will be able to elicit whether that is so—I still see dangers in this very wide definition which arise particularly from the general application of the term.
putting the public … in fear.
I think that the definition ought to be more precise. Even if the Government do not wish to accept Amendment No. 57, I think that they ought to have another look at the definition. It would be better for the process of legislation in this and future measures, if necessary, if from the start the most rigid definition were applied. I submit that the proposition that it should be tied to actual attack on human life is valid.

Mr. Stainton: The definition is as important as the execution of the act.

Mr. Mendelson: It is very important. At the same time the general definition would make too wide an interpretation possible. As in matters of this kind the sense of the Committee as well as of the country has been that rigid far-reaching punishment should be applied, it is all the more important to be very careful about the terms in which the offence is defined.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is some force in the argument about the definition being in general terms. However, I ask hon. Members to accept that this definition relates only to this Bill, not to any other legislation that might go on the statute book unless there were some reference back from that future Bill. This definition relates to the use of the term "terrorism" in Clause 1(3) which provides:
The Secretary of State may by order add to Schedule 1 to this Act any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and connected with Northern Irish affairs
The qualification is there, and it occurs again in Clause 3(3) where it says that an exclusion order can be made against any person
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.


That again is qualified by Clause 3(1) which says that the Secretary of State may exercise his powers only in relation to acts of terrorism
designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland.
The one area in which that qualification is not contained is Clause 7(1) which has been referred to twice tonight as we have been going through the amendments, and my right hon. Friend has given the Committee the explanation for that. In that circumstance, a police officer faced with a man whom he suspects of terrorism in the Northern Irish context and who is exhibiting signs of being a terrorist would not necessarily be able to define there and then whether he was a Northern Ireland terrorist or some other kind of terrorist. It therefore seems right that we should not restrict the power of the officer at that stage, but I give the assurance that the power will not be used in any of the areas suggested during the debate. In those circumstances, although it may be that given time and hindsight more precision could be imported into what we mean by terrorism, I do not think any harm is done by the definition as it stands.
Nor do I think it would be improved by the amendments that were suggested by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). The first of his amendments refers to the threat of violence. That is covered by the fact that the definition is used in the Bill in conjunction with the words "commission, preparation or instigation", which would include threats of violence.
The hon. Gentleman's second amendment relates to armed violence as distinct from violence generally. It is difficult to see why if a terrorist wanted to kick an opponent to death rather than blow him up or use a weapon upon him that kind of violence should be excluded, whereas violence with arms should be included.
The third amendment refers to kidnapping as an addition to violence. This is probably well covered by the word "violence" anyway. Someone who kidnaps does so against the victim's will and uses violence for that purpose.

Sir M. Havers: The hon. Gentleman said that given time and hindsight the

definition could be improved. I do not know whether he means that this is the first time this definition has been used. If he does, I must tell him that he is wrong. The definition has respectable antecedents, because it is in similar terms in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which went through the House about 18 months ago. There has been plenty of time and hindsight to consider it if that was not an effective definition to use.

Mr. Lyon: That merely reinforces my point that the definition as it stands in the Bill is adequate and confined in a way that will ensure that it is not abused, because it has not been abused in the earlier legislation. All I was conceding to those who suggested that a more precise definition of terrorism could be arrived at which equated the legal definition with what we mean in common parlance by terrorism was that it could no doubt be done as an exercise. It has not done any harm to have this definition in earlier legislation, and for the reasons that I have indicated I doubt whether it will do any harm to have it in this legislation.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister has too lightly dismissed the fear about this definition by saying that it refers only to this piece of legislation and might never be used again. But would he accept—

Sir M. Havers: It has been used before.

Mr. Kilfedder: I appreciate that. Parliamentary draftsmen have a habit of referring back to something that has gone through Parliament and saying that it has been accepted. The former Solicitor-General has given us such an example. Does not that add to our concern? Will the Minister look at this again?

Mr. John Mendelson: I am completely unconvinced by the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), which he has just made for the second time tonight. He seems to think that if something was contained in another Bill 18 months ago, that makes it at the same time convincing and respectable. It makes it nothing of the kind. It is precisely that sort of self-satisfied attitude that we want to avoid in future.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am not sure that the point has been cleared up. The Minister says that the reason that the arrest is not qualified by relating the acts of terrorism to Northern Ireland is that it is unreasonable to expect a police constable to decide on the spot whether the preparation or commission of the act relates to Northern Ireland. I can see that, but if a policeman arrests under this provision and it becomes clear within a matter of hours that the offence did not concern terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary's power to extend the period in custody from 48 hours to seven days with none of the normal protections, arises simply by virtue of the arrest. Therefore, the Home Secretary's power could relate not at all to any act concerned with Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State will not use his powers in that case?

Mr. Lyon: My hon. Friend's fears are not justified. This wholly exceptional power is to deal with a Northern Irish situation and its repercussions on Great Britain. We should certainly not seek to use the power to deal with any other form of terrorism. That is why we have undertaken that in such a situation we should have to bring forward fresh legislation.

Mr. Beith: The Minister is surely not saying that his right hon. Friend would neglect to use that power in a situation of some doubt as to the motivation of an act of terrorism, when questioning was proceeding and it was for that purpose that the continued detention over a few days was sought.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman should understand that this exceptional power relates to a particular crisis at the moment. There are occasional outbreaks of terrorism which have nothing to do with Northern Ireland. We have dealt with them under the general law, and it would be the intention to deal with this in the same way unless the development could not be contained in that framework.
The other matters about the exercise of power are contained in my earlier answer. This definition, apparently wide, is in fact limited by the context in which it is found. It does not matter what was in earlier Bills or what will be in later

Bills. Each Bill will have to be considered and approved by the House of Commons. Within the context of this Bill and the way in which the terms is used in the Bill, it is clear that the limitations are such as not to justify the alarm that has been expressed by some hon. Members.

Mr. Stainton: The dawn is breaking and the sun is rising. It would be unkind of me to be too harsh on the Minister of State. However, I cannot let his reply go just like that. Indeed, the word to use has, happily, been provided for me in Clause 4. It is "frivolous". The definition of "terrorism" is too wide, and. curiously, too shallow. I say that most assertively. It does scant credit to the undoubted scholarship, vocabulary and comprehension of the Home Secretary, his colleagues and his draftsmen.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that this is the same definition as was used by his Government in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Mr. Stainton: The question is whether it is a correct definition and an acceptable one. I have said how I see this definition. It horrifies me that the Minister of State has swallowed his brief and gone through my tiny amendments in the way that he did. My amendments were drafted hurriedly just before the House adjourned last night so that I could get my toe in, as it were, to endeavour to reveal the possible inadequacies of the definition. Although the Minister of State rested sublimely on a most easy, lazy definition of terrorism, I will not pursue the point. I think that I have made it adequately. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

POWER TO EXTEND TO CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Beith: It will not be amiss of me for a few seconds to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this clause, which is fashioned on a provision which has appeared many times in the past, is on this occasion no idle formality. I ask for an assurance that the Home Secretary is aware that it is no idle formality and that the situation as regards the Isle of Man in particular could give rise to a very great deal of concern. An answer to that effect would satisfy me entirely.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF ACT

Mr. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 9, line 4, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

The Chairman: With this we are to take the following amendments: No. 63, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
No. 64, in page 9, line 17, leave out six' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Stallard: A theme which has run through almost every speech in the debates on the Bill—certainly through every speech from the Labour side—has been a reluctance to accept any erosion of civil liberties for any length of time. It was evident from the Home Secretary's speech that he was determined that any erosion of our civil liberties would be for the shortest period possible. It is in that light that I regard six months as too long. There are a number of precedents where six months has proved far too long for this type of legislation bearing in mind the sort of things that can happen in that period.
Why cannot the six months be cut to three months? Some of the amendments and modifications that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier could quite easily be within the three-month period.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the amendment even at this hour. I am sure that he is wrong and I shall be glad to tell him why. Part of the reason is that I originally thought that the period should be

three months and I considered whether the period should or should not be of that duration. I was totally persuaded that three months would be far too short. There can be no question of stopping this legislation after three months or of reviewing it after only three months' operation. I am sure that if we changed it to three months I should automatically have to come back and ask for it to be renewed by order. Once we do that we get into the habit of it going on even longer. If we look at the legislation after six months we should avoid getting into the habit of renewing it too easily.

Mr. Stallard: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: At the end of six months if, as I expect, the House decides that it is right that powers like these need to be continued, there will be a very strong case for doing so not by order, although it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but by a further statute.
We have taken a whole day of Parliamentary time to pass the Bill through the House, but it has not been a waste of time. By far the most valuable time has been the Committee stage rather than Second Reading.
It is quite clear that many of the provisions will need second thoughts in the course of six months. If at the end of that period the provisions, or some of them, are proposed to be continued by order we shall only be able to pass or defeat that motion and not amend it. I hope therefore that the Government will assume that at the end of six months, if the powers are to be continued they will have to set aside one day of parliamentary time to go through the process again.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I give no promise about my hon. Friend's point, but I take seriously what he said and accept some of the arguments he put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION REGARDING ACTS OF TERRORISM

'(1) Where a person has committed or is planning to commit an arrestable offence involving an act of terrorism, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence has been committed or is being planned, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for the offence or in preventing the offence, fails to report such information to a police officer, whether invited to do so or not, shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine of £400, or both, and
(ii) on conviction on indictment to the same penalty as the law prescribes for the offence which was committed or was being planned.

(2) Where a person has committed an offence under section 1 or section 3 of this Act, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence has been committed and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, fails to report such information to a police officer, whether invited to do so or not. shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding £400, or both, and
(ii) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.'—[Mr. Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should explain that the title given on the Order Paper for the clause is not the one I submitted along with the text of the clause, and it is inaccurate as it stands. It is inaccurate because it would cover only subsection (1) and not subsection (2).
7.30 a.m.
I can best explain the purpose of the clause by describing the situation at which it is directed. Under the law as it is now and as it will remain following the passage of this Bill if the clause is not inserted, if a person knows that a terrorist offence has been committed, or any other serious offence, or that such an offence is being planned, he is not committing any offence if he does not give that information to the police, as long as his own involvement is restricted to the mere knowledge of the facts and not to any participation

in the execution of the act or in the planning of it.
That means, at its most extreme, that if it is discovered, and if it is proved, that a person knew that a bomb had been placed and knew who did it and did nothing about that information—did not pass it on to the authorities—he has done nothing criminal and cannot be penalised in any way. Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that to be correct. Assuming a person's involvement is restricted to mere knowledge and there is no further involvement, that is the case.
This feature is usually referred to with the illustration of a person who sees another drowning in a canal, or something like that. The person who observes this has no obligation either to go to the rescue or inform anyone of the fact that the man is drowning. The whole question of the obligation to report information about the knowledge of serious offences was discussed and the legal position changed as recently as 1967.
Before that date, as I understand it, the common law offences of misprision of felony would have covered some part of the offence which I am endeavouring to create by this clause. That was a common law offence and it was subject to all the obscurity which attaches to many common law offences.
The position was changed by Sections 4 and 5, particularly 5, of the Criminal Law Act 1967. What Section 5 says is that if a person has knowledge of a serious offence and he is bribed not to give that information to the police to facilitate prosecution, he is committing an offence. But if such a person withheld the information for no reason, or for any illogical reason, he is not committing any offence. That change was well thought out at the time, in 1967.
I question whether, in the context of this measure, it is still justified. It may be said that it will always be difficult to prove that a person possesses information if, in the nature of things, it is something he has declined to pass on. We have already overcome that difficulty in the 1967 Act. It may help the Committee if I read the relevant sentences. Section 5 says that:
Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other arrestable offence has been committed, and


that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration …
he is committing an offence.
At the moment we are prepared to accept a double burden of proof. It first has to be proved that the person had the information and that he had received a consideration for not revealing it. Whatever burden of proof attaches to my proposals it is less than now exists in that the point that I am considering would not exist. When the Criminal Law Revision Committee made its report in 1965 upon which the 1967 change was based it made a few remarks about the desirability of changing to the system that now exists. Paragraph 39 reads:
There are obvious objections to making a person criminally liable for not reporting to the police any minor offence of which he may happen to know.
Note the word "minor". Paragraph 40:
On the whole we think that the only case needing to be provided for is one in which a person accepts or agrees to accept a bribe not to disclose information to the police.
Note the words
on the whole we think …".
That was said in 1965 when there was not the background of terrorist activity which now exists. In paragraph 42, in concluding against widening the provision in the way I am suggesting, the Committee said:
But public opinion would be unlikely to agree to an offence consisting of refusing to answer questions by the police about the commission of offences.
I believe that public opinion now would take a different view on that matter and on the wider points that are covered in the new clause. With the present connotation of terrorism I do not think that the public can tolerate a situation where a person could be found during proceedings for a more serious offence to have had knowledge that a bomb was going to go off the next day and not to have done anything about it. I do not think that we can tolerate a situation where a court finds that a person knew who had committed an offence but did not reveal that information to facilitate a prosecution.
I suggest that the kind of situation that might arise in practice is where half-a-dozen youths live in the same house and two or three of them are accused

of conspiring to commit a terrorist act. The court might find the case proved against all but one of the youths. It might be said that while he knew about the plans there was no evidence that he had participated in them. In those circumstances I think we have to create an offence of which that person would be guilty.
My clause is based largely on the wording of the 1967 Act and it takes whatever respectability the wording of that Act may have. The 1967 Act flowed very much from the committee's report. The reference to material assistance is a straight quotation from the 1967 Act. The differences are that I propose that it should be an offence to withhold information not only about an act that has been committed but about planning for a future act. Secondly, there is no provision about consideration. I propose that information should be given whether or not it is requested. I am not proposing that it should be an offence only to decline to give information to the police if they have reason to ask for it but that it should be an offence not to give it even if a person is not requested.
Subsection 1 would apply such an offence to arrestable offences—namely, serious offences involving an act of terrorism as defined in the Bill. Subsection 2 is less important and jettisonable. It provides for the honest disclosure of information about a relatively minor offence now created an offence by earlier clauses of the Bill.
I hope that the new clause commends itself to the Government, if not necessarily in my words. If it does not at this perhaps it might in six months time if the Bill has to be renewed. The situations which I have described should not be tolerated without some punishment attaching to those responsible.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in his arguments on the first part of the new Clause 1. I think that there is a deficiency—a deficiency which could otherwise only be cured by the overused law of conspiracy. However, I should be reluctant to see further recourse to that law. I should prefer to see the provisions in the first part of the deficiency—a deficiency which could be


rather than to rely on the law of conspiracy. The law of conspiracy has been over-used on previous occasions and is liable to be used to meet a deficiency which the first part of the new clause would seek to remedy.
I strongly dissent from the proposal that the second part of the clause should be incorporated in the Bill, because it would make it an offence if a knew that somebody had collected money for the IRA or had been a member of the IRA and I failed to disclose it. Many of us have an idea about several such people, but I am not sure that there should be an obligation to disclose that, with a criminal sanction if one does not. However, if one has knowledge of a proposed act of terrorism one ought to be under an obligation to disclose it to the authorities and should be regarded as committing an offence if one does not disclose it. Although I do not think the law is as deficient as my hon. Friend suggests, I think that it would be desirable to have contained in the Bill the provisions of the first part of the new clause.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for the clarity with which he introduced the new clause, and for the manner in which he traced the history of the matter. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea behind the clause. I know that both my hon. Friend and also my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) have reservations about the second part of the clause.
Perhaps I, too, should say something about the history of the matter. Before the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to which my hon. Friend referred, there was a great deal of doubt as to the law of so-called misprision of felony. But what seems to be quite clear is that in order to commit that offence it was necessary to be guilty of some dishonesty, such as that of "telling a lie to put the police off the track". There were also probably some limitations affecting the relatives of the person who had committed the felony.
The committee gave thorough consideration to the changes that would be necessary as a result of the abolition of

the difference between felony and misdemeanour and closely considered the law on misprision and what should take its place. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Fins-bury quoted the passage in which reference was made to minor offences, it is fair to say that the committee went beyond that and said "The present law of misprision is also open to objection in that it does not require that the omission to give information of the felony should be dishonest, and that it contains no clear limitation as regards offences committed even by near relatives". That was a matter which the committee felt it was necessary to deal with.
7.45 a.m.
I understand my hon. Friend's proposal to go much wider than certainly the law before the report of the committee and also much wider than the committee felt should be the law and that the House of Commons put into law as a result of the passage of the Criminal Law Act 1967. My hon. Friend says, in effect, that here we have a special, unique type of offence and that we ought to have a different duty from the duty which has been accepted as a result of all that consideration in respect of all arrestable offences—that is, those subject to imprisonment for five years or more, even the most heinous of those offences which may come before the courts.
The question, therefore, for the Committee is whether, in the context of this temporary provisions Bill, one should step completely out of line with what was considered to be right for all those more serious offences as recently as the report in 1965 and the Act of 1967, and whether we ought to impose a burden which would be substantially wider than both the burden before the 1967 Act and the burden created by it. It would certainly not deal with either of the points which the committee felt to be of importance—the element of dishonesty and the element of protection for a relative who in some circumstances could perhaps hardly be expected to comply with the wide duty which my hon. Friend suggests should be in force.
One of the difficulties about this very wide duty is that although, as he has said, my hon. Friend has followed the wording to some extent of the 1967 Act, the basic point of that Act is that there


had to be an element of bribery about the offence. That, of course, would be very much easier to prove than what my hon. Friend now suggests should be the law. The offence which would be created by my hon. Friend's new clause would be not only substantially wider than the law as it is today but substantially more difficult to prove than under the law as it is today.

Sir Michael Havers: Can the Attorney-General advise the Committee on a point which may be of importance? Where the person who has committed or is planning the crime is a husband and the wife gets knowledge of it, not through the husband but through a third person, would she be protected against prosecution under the amendment?

The Attorney-General: As I understand my hon. Friend's amendment, I see no protection whatever as regards relatives or husbands and wives.
There would be considerable difficulty in proving the matters contained in the new clause, and it would go much wider than the present law. I sympathise with, and applaud, the view that one might wish to have a more stringent duty for most serious offences—not only terrorism. It may be that the 1968 Act did not go far enough in that direction. But this is the sort of matter that should be considered in the context of our criminal law as a whole, rather than moving out of line with the criminal law in a temporary provisions Bill of this character.
As it appears from the views so far expressed that in any event subsection (2) is unsatisfactory, I suggest to my hon. Friend that we can consider the matter further before the Bill is renewed, if it is. In those circumstances, I ask him to seek leave to withdraw the new clause. If he feels unable to do so, I cannot at this stage recommend it to the Committee.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Attorney-General said two things in consecutive sentences. First, he thought that the provisions of the clause should be considered in the context of the criminal law as a whole, and that we should not go beyond it in a temporary provisions measure. Then he added that he thought that the matter could be reviewed in the six months while a new

measure is considered to deal with temporary provisions against terrorism.
If there is any question of an amendable measure being introduced in six months' time, an amendment on the lines proposed in the clause should be considered. There is an essential difference between foreknowledge of terrorism and foreknowledge of other criminal acts. The terrorist killing is the only one that is directed not at any specific target but at the public in general. This imposes a much heavier burden than normal duty on people who might have foreknowledge which they should, as good citizens, communicate to the authorities.

The Attorney-General: The existing law to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) referred would apply in respect of the Bill if the new clause were not inserted. I suppose that even if it were added to the Bill there would be two duties running side by side and overlapping. But there is no reason why, before we renew the measure, if we have to, we should not consider, both in relation to the Bill and possibly in a wider context, the kind of provision my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not completely poured cold water on the idea. I am grateful for that, and for his undertaking that it can be considered in the next six months.
But it should be part of our strategy in dealing with the situation in the next six months to have a package of devices rather than to introduce one every month. It would make a much greater impact on the terrorists if they saw that we were adopting a large number of practical proposals—which is how I regard the proposal in the clause—rather than having them in bits and pieces.
What we shall need in order to combat the terrorist is information, as has often been said in the context of Northern Ireland. Many of us fought hard two or three years ago to stop some methods of obtaining information. But we must assist in obtaining information legitimately and legally. The new clause would not only penalise those who did not assist in that and positively impeded it but would create an atmosphere in


which it was respectable to provide the information when the denial of it, which could cost lives, would be a criminal act.
I cannot understand the Attorney-General's point that it would be more difficult to prove a charge under the new clause than under the existing law, because under the existing law one has to prove that the person had the information and withheld it and that he was bribed, whereas under the clause one would have to prove that he had the information and withheld it and no question of bribery would arise.

The Attorney-General: The new clause makes it an offence to withhold information if a person believes that something has happened, whether or not it has. That would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove—a belief that something had happened. There is the provision in the clause which relates to information
which might be of material assistance.
Again, that is a form of words which the prosecution would find difficult to fit into its case in a criminal court.

Mr. Cunningham: I hesitate in bandying words with the Attorney-General on a point like this, but my clause refers to a situation
Where a person has committed or is planning to commit an arrestable offence",
and goes on with the words which my right hon. and learned Friend has just quoted. But the 1967 Act uses those words. I accept that there is greater difficulty in respect of my clause because I suggest that it should be an offence to deny information about even the planning of an offence.
However, on the other points, I should have thought that the burden of proof was decidedly weaker in the case of my clause than on the law as it is. I see no reason why a wife should be protected if her husband has planted a bomb in a pillar box. I do not see why she has any entitlement to deny that knowledge to those who wish to stop people being blown up by it. I should be prepared to see her go to gaol if she declined to give that information.

Leaving the law as it is means that if a court, after rigorous examination of the evidence, finds that a person knew of an offence which had been committed or an offence which was about to be committed even in circumstances in which he could have avoided the loss of life, no one will be able to say that he was committing any offence and no punishment would attach to him. I cannot believe that the public would wish that situation to arise.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: May we ascertain from the Attorney-General confirmation that the legal position is not as it was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Fins-bury (Mr. Cunningham)? It would be unfortunate if the impression were to be gained that, even without the new clause, somebody knew that a criminal offence was about to be committed and did not report it was not liable to incur a penalty. There is the matter of the law of conspiracy and the question of people being accessories before the fact. It is not correct to say that somebody who knows that an offence is about to be committed and passively co-operates in it is not committing an offence. The law needs to be tightened up. There should be an obligation on such a person to take action.

Mr. Cunningham: If it is possible for the Attorney-General to confirm that, I shall be grateful. It would do much good outside the House of Commons.
I do not intend to press the clause to a Division, but I am not inclined to withdraw it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 5

INDEPENDENT TRIBUNALS

'The Secretary of State shall establish a tribunal independent of the police to review allegations of abuse by persons who have been detained under section 7 of this Act'.—[Mr. Prescott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 61, Noes 193.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[8.0 a.m.


Bales, Alf
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)


Bean, Robert E.
Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Buchan, Norman
Clemitson, I. M.




Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kinnock, Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
Lee, John
Sedgemore, B.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Litterick, Tom
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Delargy, Hugh
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Edge, Geoffrey
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ronald (Bristol NW)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge)
Watkinson, John


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Huckfield, Leslie
Noble, Mike



Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert
Mr. John Prescott and


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Phillip Whitehead.


Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N)
Mellish. Rt Hon Robert


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
George, Bruce
Molloy, William


Ashley, Jack
Gilbert, Dr John
Molyneaux, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Biffen, John
Gould, Bryan
Moyle, Roland


Bishop, Edward
Gow, I. (Eastbourne)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Murray, Ronald King


Booth, Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hamling, William
Orme Rt Hn Stanley


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter
Owen, Dr David


Brotherton, Michael
Harper, Joseph
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Pr)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Park, George


Buchanan, Richard
Hatlon, Frank
Parkinson, Cecil


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey)
Havers, Sir Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, Ian
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Perry, Ernest


Carson, John
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Radice, Giles


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham, St)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Johnson, James (Kingston W)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, M)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewish)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfedder, James
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Snape, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lane, David
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Dempsey, James
McCusker, Harold
Strang, Gavin


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacFarquhar, R.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Macmillan, Rt Hn M. (Farnham)
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)
Tomlinson, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Magee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mahon, Simon
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


English, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ennals, David
Marks, Ken
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)
Marquand, David
Ward, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weatherill, Bernard


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Weetch, Ken


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mates, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mayhew, Patrick
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, P)







Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)



Williams, Alan (Swansea)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOB THE NOES


Williams, Alan, Lee (Haver'g)
Woof, Robert
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wrigglesworth, lan
Mr. J.D. Dormand.


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E)

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: I understand that Amendment No. 51 will not be moved. We come, then, to Government amendment——

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. What about my Amendment No. 65?

The Chairman: Order. We are in danger of getting into a slightly Irish situation. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) must wait until we get to Amendment No. 65.

Schedules I and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS FOR SECTIONS 1 TO 8

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, Amendment No. 52, in page 11, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Mr. Fitt: What has happened to Schedule 1?

Mr. Powell: We have just agreed to Schedules 1 and 2. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) must have been asleep at the time.

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. I have an amendment to Schedule 1, and you will recall that I attempted to draw your attention to it.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am afraid that I was going by the numbers on the Notice Paper——

Mr. McNamara: It seems to me that this is more a Welsh situation.

The Chairman: Order. With the permission of the Committee, we will undo that which we have just done—and, of course, with the permission of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whom I had called.

Mr. Powell: On a further point of order, Mr. Thomas. Are you sure that it does not require a resolution of the House to undo schedules which we have already added to the Bill?

The Chairman: Fortunately, the rules of the House provide for such circumstances. There will be a Report stage when, I hope, the hon. Member for Belfast, West may be heard. Mr. Powell.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged, Mr. Thomas. I am sure that we shall all wait for the Report stage to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast. West.

Mr. McNamara: Are we to assume, Mr. Thomas, that you are now drafting the amendment for my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in readiness for the Report stage?

The Chairman: It is clear that I shall accept, as a manuscript amendment, the amendment which the hon. Gentleman was to have moved in Committee. It will be for Mr. Speaker to deal with.

8.15 a.m.

Mr. Powell: Reverting forward to the Third Schedule, sub-paragraph (4) contains a rather surprising and, if I understand it correctly, objectionable provision. The previous sub-paragraphs provide for the appointment of examining officials. Sub-paragraph (2) sets out the various classes of persons who may be appointed as examining officers.
When we come to sub-paragraph (4), we find that the order which appoints these officers and confers powers upon them also confers upon them the power
… to authorise any other person to exercise, on his behalf, any of the powers conferred by virtue of that subsection.
On the face of it, this appears to be a breach of the fundamental rule delegatus non potest delegare, for here are persons who have been given powers to exercise themselves, but the order goes on to enable them, in their own apparently unfettered discretion, to transfer the exercise of those powers to other persons.
There may be limitations on those powers more than appear on the face of the schedule, but, if there are not, it it would seem undesirable that examining officers should have carte blanche to delegate their powers of search and detaining articles to other persons.
It is not acceptable that an examining officer meeting half a dozen people on his way should say to them, "I hereby authorise you to exercise the powers of search on my behalf." I cannot believe that this can be the intention of the paragraph, but that is what appears on the face of it. I have moved the amendment to obtain clarification.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister in this paragraph. It is similar to a paragraph in the second schedule to the Immigration Act.
First, the order provides that a woman cannot be searched except by a woman. If no woman police officer or woman immigration officer is available, it may be necessary for a nurse or some other female member of the medical staff in the port to act in that capacity.
Secondly, it is sometimes necessary, if there is a rush, for an examining officer to ask a customs officer, who has not formally been appointed as an immigration officer, to search packages or a vehicle.
The power exists for that reason, and it has been used in relation to the Immigration Act. I hope that in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will feel reassured.

Mr. Powell: I can see that the reasons for delegation, as the Minister of State has explained them, are right and proper, but this seems to be the second instance at least during this sitting—I think more than that—when we have discovered a precedent for a wider and less satisfactory drafting than we would have preferred. Surely if the purposes are as the Minister explained, it would not be beyond the powers of draftsmen to specify limitations wide enough for those purposes, but not at large, as they stand in the schedule at the moment.
Those of us who take an interest in this legislation will make a record of this as yet another aspect which, when there is more time, will require more mature consideration and improvement. With that reflection, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 11, line 39, after 'Great Britain' insert 'or Northern Ireland'.
I think that it might be convenient if with this we take Amendment No. 70.

The Chairman: So be it.

Mr. Lyon: These are purely drafting amendments. It is clear in the second case that Northern Ireland was intended, but Great Britain somehow managed to get into the draft.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 12, line 23, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'Northern Ireland'—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Mr. Clemitson: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 13, line 12, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
Those sub-paragraphs say:
(4) If a member of a police force of a rank not lower than the rank of superintendent has reasonable grounds for believing that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary, he may by a written order signed by him give to any member of a police force the authority which may be given by a search warrant under this paragraph.
(5) Where any authority is to given, particulars of the case shall be notified as soon as may be to the Secretary of State.
That means that a policeman of superintendent rank or above can be given the same powers as a magistrate in authorising searches in certain specified circumstances, subject to a subsequent report to the Secretary of State. I propose to speak briefly to the principle involved here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) will deal with the practical issues that will arise if these powers are granted to the police.
It has been said on many occasions during the debates on the Bill that we must take power to combat terrorism, while at the same time keeping to a minimum the incursions into and diminutions of the rights and liberties of the individual. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about steering a middle course. It seems to me that the onus of proof must be on those who wish to diminish civil liberties to show that it is necessary to do so to combat terrorism.
We have here an issue of some importance because, if sub-paragraph (4) is passed, the police will be exercising a power that properly belongs to magistrates—namely, the power to authorise searches. The rôles of the police and magistrates will therefore be confused, and it seems to me that in other parts of the Bill the rôles of the executive and judiciary have been confused, too.
Keeping separate the rôles of magistrate and policeman is one of the important bulwarks of our civil liberties, and sub-paragraph (4) represents a serious incursion into them. If this is to be justified, a strong case must be produced for it. It must be shown that there are special circumstances that justify this, and I do not believe that such a case is made out. I do not believe that the circumstances outlined in sub-paragraph (4) justify this kind of departure from normal practice.
My sole point is that we should realise what we are doing if we pass this sub-paragraph. We are confusing two rôles, that of the magistrate and that of the policeman, and these are rôles which, even in the exceptional and admittedly difficult times in which we live, must not be confused. The amendment will ensure that such confusion does not arise.

Mr. George Rodgers: The purpose of sub-paragraph (4) is said to be to enable the police to employ speed in emergency. It would give a police superintendent authority to issue a written order which would allow any member of the police force to conduct a search. I find it difficult to accept that there are fewer magistrates than police superintendents in any area. In times of stress I fear that the police would be overwhelmingly tempted to use such powers both hastily and even perhaps casually.
It has been said that authority for a search in the described circumstances would be permitted only if there were reasonable grounds for believing that the case was one of great emergency. But who can define "reasonable" and "great emergency"?
The sub-paragraph says that particulars must be notified "as soon as may be" to the Secretary of State. That term is

very vague and could mean anything at all. In any case, it is much easier to justify the action after the event. The proposed formula seems completely unnecessary and I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: To appreciate the need for this sub-paragraph, it is important to remember—after a long night, we may all be in danger of forgetting it—the exact circumstances in which the Bill was introduced. The sub-paragraph is necessary and, I believe, acceptable to the Committee in those circumstances.
A superintendent of police—any police officer—has to be subject to a good deal of discipline. He has to satisfy himself here that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the case is one of great emergency and that, in the interests of the State, immediate action is necessary. He has to report his action to the Secretary of State thereafter, which is an exceptional step to take.
I believe that the safeguards here are adequate. It may be provable that in the country as a whole there are as many magistrates as there are police superintendents but it is surely not outside the bounds of the imagination of the Committee to see that there could well be circumstances of immediate emergency, in which a superintendent is far more likely to be quickly available in a police operation than a magistrate is.
I would not give, nor would I subsequently approve, powers of this sort lightly. I assure hon. Members that superintendents will not treat them lightly, especially in view of the precautions that I have described. Strong language is used here, but it is language which is necessary in the interests of the State. In the light of that assurance. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendment.

Mr. Clemitson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments: as amended considered.

Clause 1

PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS

8.30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 2, line 16. to leave out subsection (6).
The House will recall that many hours ago we had a debate about Clause 1(6). At that stage strong feelings were expressed on both sides and I gave an undertaking at the end of the debate, which I think was satisfactory to both sides of the Committee, that I would ask my right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate to consider the matter with my own advisers and ascertain whether this provision was essential.
After considerable consultation, my right hon. and learned Friends came to the conclusion that there was value in this provision, that it could be an important element in proving membership, but none the less, taking into account the feelings which had been expressed on both sides and also in view of the other powers the Bill confers on the Secretary of State, they advise me, and it is advice which I thought it right to accept in the circumstances, that it was not essential and necessary to retain this subsection. I therefore move that it be deleted.

Sir M. Havers: The House deserves a better explanation than that. The House will remember that in Committee I said in terms to the Attorney-General that I supported everything he had said when he was speaking in favour of sub-section (6). I admit that I pointed out to him the slight difficulty which might arise amongst the Ministers who had voted against such a provision. I think I counted seven out of the nine. I certainly exclude the Home Secretary from that.
When I saw the Bill yesterday I thought that at last the present Government had seen the light, but it seems that they have got rather badly jostled by their fellow travellers on the road to Damascus. Only about four hours after the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General were both saying that this provision was an import-

ant part of the Bill, and very important for Scotland, it now appears to be no longer so.
We should like to know who has been consulted to bring about this change of mind. Has the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police been consulted? Has the head of the Special Branch been consulted? What else has made the Government change their minds? What has happened, apart from a discussion and apart from a reaction on the part of a certain number of hon. Members sitting behind the Home Secretary, that has made the right hon. Gentleman change his mind in that time? That is why I say that the House deserves a better explanation.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision. It is a wise decision that he has taken to answer the representations which have been made to him very forcibly on both sides and also to fall in line with the advice that was given to us when we were in opposition by the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
There is a virtue in consistency in government and consistency in opposition. On this occasion we should congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it. I only hope that when on Thursday evening we look again at the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act my right hon. Friend will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to Section 19(6) of that Act, which is identical in words to the words which it is now proposed to throw out of this measure, and that we shall do likewise then.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am somewhat disappointed and puzzled by the statement by the Home Secretary. I am disappointed because it is only one week since he made a very fine statement in the House about the bomb incident in Birmingham and said that there would be no capitulation. He is now capitulating to his own Left wing.
I am puzzled, because the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Secretary


of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State. Northern Ireland Office all turned their backs on these benches—it was rather like watching a member of one's own Front Bench address the House—and told their Left wing that this measure was essential for Scotland, and at the same time the Lord Advocate was playing Sancho Panza to those four Ministers whom I have mentioned. I want to know what has happened in the last four hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have been asleep."] I have been here virtually the whole time. What has happened to the law of Scotland in the last four hours to justify that a schedule that was essential four hours ago should now be deleted?

Mr. Greville Janner: As one of those who asked for the withdrawal of the clause. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the will of the House, for considering the matter during the last four hours, for recognising that the clause is unnecessary and for withdrawing it in a proper manner. I deplore the churlish attitude of those who have attacked my right hon. Friend for his action after having asked him to do exactly what he has done.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is well within my recollection that if there were Left wingers they seemed to be scattered fairly evenly across the Floor of the House when I was dealing with this matter.
The sort of speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) encourages Ministers to treat Parliament with contempt, and that is not right, and it is not my intention. We have not hesitated to vote and force matters through. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was the one out-of-tune speech that we have heard throughout the night. We have managed to get this difficult Bill through with remarkably little change, and I am grateful for the constructive spirit that the House has shown.
were Left wingers they seemed to be

Sir K. Joseph: The Home Secretary has behaved extremely courteously to the House throughout the long sitting, but his last references to my hon. and learned Friend were less than fair because the

interventions from the Conservative side during the debate to which the present decision harks back were interrogative ones trying to discover what the Government meant. We did not press from this side of the House for the Home Secretary to make the decision he has now made, and that ought to go on the record.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Fitt: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in Schedule 1, page 10, line 4, at end add:
'UFF (Ulster Freedom Fighters)
Red Hand Commandos
Ulster Protestant Action Group.'
I am somewhat reassured to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. At the latter end of the Committee stage I began to feel that I might be subject to the first exclusion order of this legislation.
This is a serious amendment because it has been conceded, particularly in Northern Ireland throughout the last four or five years, that more than one element is involved in the violence.
The Provisional IRA has been engaged in a dreadful campaign of violence, but so has the UFF, which has admitted to carrying out some of the most brutal murders in Northern Ireland. The Red Hand Commandos, too, have admitted to carrying out murders. In the last five or six weeks a new organisation has emerged and has claimed responsibility by telephone for a number of very foul murders.
If it is the intention of the Bill to prevent terrorism in the United Kingdom there is a duty on the Government and hon. Members, no matter that some of them may find the legislation distasteful, to make sure that it is effective, and to try to prevent terrorists operating anywhere within the United Kingdom.
If the UFF organisation and the Red Hand Commandos are proscribed in Northern Ireland they should be included in the schedule. We have seen them repeatedly in television interviews with men wearing masks, and that is particularly the case in Northern Ireland. Only last week there was a large newspaper article in which a Protestant extremist organisation claimed responsibility over recent weeks for 28 murders. That inter-


view was just as provocative and unhelpful as the David O'Connell interview on television. If this legislation proscribes only the Provisional IRA, that will be seen in Northern Ireland—and the Secretary of State knows that public opinion in Northern Ireland can be suspicious—as being deliberately directed at one type of terrorist. I have made my position clear. I can say, on behalf of the minority in Northern Ireland, that we are opposed to any form of terrorism.
It is the duty of the Government to include in the Bill all the other organisations which have been engaged in this campaign and so make it clear to every citizen of the United Kingdom that this is a fair and even-handed measure.

Mr. Powell: In principle I would not disagree with what I think the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has in mind. Indeed, I might welcome him as a mild convert, at any rate to the principle of reciprocity and approximation of the law between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Certainly my hon. Friends and I would hope to see on this matter an identity, not necessarily immediately but eventually, between the proscription laws in Great Britain and the proscription laws in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is absurd that different organisations should be proscribed in different parts of the United Kingdom.
It may well be that this will be best achieved by the right hon. Gentleman in due course using his powers to add to the list in Schedule 1 by order. In principle, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with the principle, I believe that the proscribed organisations should be the same throughout the realm.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Since the outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland I have constantly condemned the campaign of murder, maiming and destruction. On Saturday last a Protestant constituent of mine was murdered, and the following day a Roman Catholic constituent was murdered. This matter is very much to the fore of my mind.
I ask the Home Secretary to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who said that a newspaper—he did not give its name—had reported an interview with masked terrorists who claimed to have murdered 28 people. I am appalled at this. If this interview has taken place the police ought to make investigations, trace these individuals to see whether they have committed such murders, and bring them to trial if they feel that the allegations are well founded.
The hon. Members claimed that the Red Hand Commandos telephoned to claim responsibility for murders. Again I ask that the most rigorous search be made for these individuals. Is there any evidence that these people have committed murders? If so I would like some information about them.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am not in a position to give evidence on the point raised by the hon. Member for Down. North (Mr. Kilfedder). I will certainly have the matter investigated following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said. To my hon. Friend I say that I do not at this moment wish to proscribe more than the single organisation named in the schedule. I ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment.
I take note of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says. We are dealing essentially with activity in this country. I do not think that we should be stampeded into adding to the list. I believe that it will prove necessary to add to it, and I have power to do so by order. I shall not hesitate to use that power in what I might describe as an even-handed way. There will be no question of proceeding against one side rather than the other.
I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend will leave the matter as it stands.

Mr. Fitt: I find it difficult to accept my right hon. Friend's assurance and I must leave the matter for the House to decide.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EEC (CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD)

8.47 a.m.

The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move:
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1255/74.
This debate, although rather later than we expected, is taking place at the request of the Scrutiny Committee to enable the House to make known its views on the Commission's proposals. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the Community quota system as it now exists and as it should develop.
As the House knows, most international road haulage—about 95 per cent.—takes place under arrangements based on a bilateral agreement. They vary in form but normally they prohibit or severely restrict third country traffic. For example, a lorry registered in country A may not pick up in country B for delivery to country C. That often means uneconomic running. In 1969 the original Six introduced the experimental Community quota system which permits traffic to be picked up within one Community country and taken to another. It also permits the quota to be used on more than one occasion. That was a small-scale experiment in the liberalisation of international road haulage operations.
It was of small scale because initially it gave us only 1,200 permits throughout the Six. That represented about 3 per cent. of intra-Community road haulage. Most of the journeys continued and still continue to be carried out under bilateral agreements. Even if the issue of Community quotas runs to the extent recommended by the Commission they will still amount to only 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the intra-Community traffic at the end of 1976.
The whole of the United Kingdom share can be set out by giving the figures. When we acceded to the Community originally we had only 99 permits. From April to December 1973 that allocation was increased to 114. From January to June of this year we had 129 permits and at the last meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers I managed to get an increase of some 75 per cent., raising the number to 227.
One of the difficulties in the earlier stages was that some members of the EEC linked a proportion of the Community quotas with the then Government's refusal to go along with the Commission's recommendations on the weight and dimensions of lorries.
I made it very clear in June that I stood by the situation laid down by the then Labour Opposition on 29th November 1972 when my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment moved a motion
That this House, mindful of the environment, is against bigger and heavier lorries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 511.]
That motion was carried without a Division and, as far as I recall, without a dissident voice being raised. I made it clear to my Community colleagues that that was the position as I saw it and that if it came to a debate in the House on the subject, I would expect the House to reach a similar conclusion as that which it reached in November 1972.
There is no question of the extra quotas which I achieved in June having been obtained by any concession whatever on the question of weights and dimensions. As far as I know, the matter is not on the agenda for the next meeting which is proposed to take place on 11th December. It is essential to have a meeting before the end of the year because the Community quota system would otherwise come to an end. The Commission proposes that the system should continue for two more years and will give an annual increase of 15 per cent. to the Six and 20 per cent. to new members.
The Government's attitude is that the extension of the number of quotas is a step in the right direction—but it is only a step. It would be wrong if the system lapsed on 31st December 1974 because my view—and I think it was the view of my predecessor—is that we should like to see a substantial liberalisation of international road haulage. We welcome the proposals, as have the Scandinavians—and indeed the Benelux countries where there are no restrictions on numbers, and where the arrangement works on a reciprocal basis. Therefore, it would be unfortunate if the Community quota system were to come to an end.
The bilateral arrangements can be illustrated by some figures. I wish to refer


to the major bilateral arrangements which we have been able to make for next year. We do not yet know what the Community quota will be for 1975. The present quota which ran from June is 227, which is 75 per cent, higher for the first half of the year. Against that we have already reached agreement with France on a general quota of 29,000 for 1975, which is 25 per cent, up on this year. We have also increased the co-operation quota, where the journeys are partly carried by French vehicles, from 5,500 to 7,000. In the case of West Germany we have reached agreement for a 15 per cent, increase for the first half of next year to make 5,710 permits available, and there is provision for a further 5 per cent, increase from 1st July next, bringing the total for the year to 5,960. Also, in this case the co-operation quota goes up from 500 to 700.
The only country in which we have not been very successful—there are special difficulties here—has been in the case of the Italian quota. We have not yet reached agreement for next year. A new Minister of Transport has been appointed by the Italian Government and I shall be making early and strong representations to him, because I have received from hon. Members complaints and instances of difficulties caused to firms in their constituencies because we have been unable to provide as many permits for journeys to and through Italy as we would have wished. As the House knows, the quota for 1974 was no greater than in 1973—although there has been a big increase of trade—and, indeed, is less than it was in 1972. I shall certainly do all I can to improve that bilateral agreement.
At the meeting on 11th December or whenever it takes place, while making it absolutely clear that the Government's position about the dimensions of vehicles remains unchanged I shall certainly press for a substantial increase in the number of Community quota permits allocated to this country, and I should like to go with the feeling that these two objectives—remaining firm on the dimensions issue and seeking a further and substantial increase in the number of quotas—have the support of the House.
For that reason I welcome this debate, although we could all agree that we would have preferred it to take place at a rather different time in the parliamentary timetable.

8.58 a.m.

Mr. Enoch Powell: The Minister need not fear the withdrawal of the instruction which was given at the end of 1972, and in so far as his second objective is the best of a bad job he probably need have no anxiety about that either.
This Community draft regulation is, however, a typically ironical Community production and it illustrates the wide gulf between profession and practice in the European Economic Community. After all, the underlying principle on which the Community is constructed is the principle of market conditions, freedom of exchange regulated by competition and the classic theory of widening the area of free movement and improving the quality of competition. And yet we are presented with a document of this sort which represents exactly the opposite principle.
In my opinion it is bad enough inside any one country for road transport to be regulated bureaucratically as to its quantity. I am not concerned with regulations relating solely to safety of road user, and so on. I am concerned purely with the economic aspect of the quantities and loads carried. That is bad enough inside a single country, but here, in the area which is supposed to be engaged in breaking down the barriers to competition, we find a fully-developed quota system in action, with the allocation of the quotas carved up on the best bureaucratic principles. These are intended-otherwise they are of no effect—to defeat market methods of allocation and replace them by arbitrary allocation. So we have the most brusque contrast that can be imagined between theory and practice. It is clear that neither the British road haulage industry nor the right hon. Gentleman likes this international quota system of allocation, and it is difficult to see how they could.
But then there is the second irony which the regulation exhibits, that the reality lies somewhere remote from what the Community and the Commission purport to be doing and to be imposing by


regulation. As the right hon. Gentleman made dramatically clear by the figures he quoted, the reality lies in the bi-lateral arrangements made between member countries. They are not made between member countries because the countries are members; they are made between the countries because, given the different forms of restriction in the respective countries, in order to maintain a reasonable volume of road traffic between them for ordinary commercial reasons they have to come to an agreement.
They would have come to a similar agreement—for all I know a better agreement—if there had not been this dream world superimposed upon them of a bureaucratic Community quota system. So here we have the double myth of the Community, the contrast between professions and practice, and the contrast between Community theory and the reality, which has little or nothing to do with the Community.
The fact is that road traffic between this country and Western Europe would develop, and would probably develop more satisfactorily, if the Community had never existed. Whether we are in the Community or not, little or no obstacle would be offered to that development, which must clearly have a long way to go in the coming years.
But we are now in the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he echoed every word which I have spoken, would find himself up to the knees in the existing Community system, and no remit which this House could give him would enable him to escape from it. I deduce from that a very broad and brutal conclusion. That is that the sort of negotiations which we need to have with the Community, the sort of terms which we need to get from the Community in large and in small, are not to be obtained by saying "We are renegotiating, but meanwhile we play along within the rules." They are to be obtained only on the strength which is given by the electoral authority that the Government have for a fundamental renegotiation. Let them use that, and they will very soon find that far more freedom of trade will be opened up to this country in Western Europe than the Community rules will ever achieve. 
These are the reflections—either sad or hopeful, according to taste—which the regulations may well inspire.

9.4 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to speak after the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because, while I agree with some of the comments he made, I find the case he has put ironic. He charges the Community with not practising what it preaches, but I suspect that the reasons for this are reasons of economic constraints which inevitably make themselves felt in areas where free competition without restriction is perhaps the ideal.
It was, I believe, a very conservative administration in the early 1930s which introduced control and regulation in this country as to quantity and routes and installed a quasi-judicial procedure under the Road Traffic Acts which interrupted the theoretical free flow of competition since men and vehicles were literally running themselves into the ground in fatal accidents because of the fierce and bitter competition in the road transport industry.

Mr. Powell: What the hon. Gentleman says about the history of this matter in the United Kingdom is perfectly true, and that is why as long as I have been in politics, some 30 years, I have publicly and consistently condemned the legislation of 1930 and 1933.

Mr. Spearing: The House will be interested to hear that, but the right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to confuse what I understood from my right hon. Friend the Minister to be two subjects. I understand that the regulation we are considering deals with B and C countries, whereas the second half of my right hon. Friend's remarks was concerned with bilateral quotas, which I do not see referred to in the regulation.

Mr. Mulley: The bilateral arrangements are, as the word suggests, negotiated, and sometimes the negotiations are long and difficult, but, as "bilateral" indicates, they are carried on between the two countries concerned. I mention the matter first, because it will be a source of satisfaction to the House that substantial increases have been agreed for next year which will very much help our road haulage industry and its trade, and, secondly, so that the House, in judging


the document, may realise that it is an important but not significant part of the total international road haulage business. It was put in only for reasons of perspective. Bilateral quotas are not discussed in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming the matter. It may well be correct with regard to bilateral quotas and bilateral agreements. I do not think that it is necessarily correct with regard to second and third country quotas, which are the subject of the regulation.
I conclude from what my right hon. Friend has said that bilateral quotas were not only in existence but were negotiated before this country acceded to the treaty. Therefore, should we remove ourselves from the EEC, similar bilateral arrangements would persist and would continue on a bilateral basis whether or not we were in the Community. Bilateral traffic is by far the largest section. The rest is only 7 or 8 per cent, of international trade in the Community. Therefore, were we to withdraw from the EEC, the loss of the quotas would not be a matter of great moment.
I fear that much of the growth to which my right hon. Friend has referred is not perhaps as healthy as some of us would wish. It has been pointed out to me that the loss of entrepot trade with the rest of the world from South Coast ports and, particularly, from London, may have found its way into TIR lorries crossing the Channel. Therefore, large lorries which hon. Members see en route for Dover or a roll-on roll-off ferry boat may not represent trade specifically between this country and one of the EEC countries. Such trade may be going to Antwerp or Rotterdam where it will be swiftly loaded upon an international ocean-going freighter which may at other times have come to British ports. Some of the growth in the bilateral rather than the regulation traffic is of that sort. In quoting increased trade figures between ourselves and the EEC countries we must remember that there will be an element of indirect entrepot trade which previously came direct by sea.
I am sorry that the Explanatory Memorandum is not so detailed as it might be. My right hon. Friend put the

regulation into perspective and told us of its purpose, which was not to be divined from the memorandum. I hope future memoranda will contain more detailed information. The regulation refers to figures that appear "appropriate".
What is the criteria on which an increase in quotas is based in global terms and nationally? According to the regulation, quotas are allocated to specific carriers. Who checks the lorry permits of specific carriers, and on what basis? I presume that is done by the erstwhile Ministry of Transport within the Department of the Environment, but on what basis? Do operators make application, and on what basis is a limited number of quotas farmed out?
According to the parent regulations the records are complex and must be returned within a fortnight. Are the records collected, and is a summary of the non-bilateral traffic issued under the preceding regulations? Many people would be interested in the records and were we to secede from the EEC for these purposes there is no reason why our public records should not maintain the traditions of the past.
We cannot take a strong objection to the regulation because it applies to a relatively small proportion of the international traffic, and the bilateral quotas, which are strictly outside the EEC structure, would still be maintained were we to secede from the EEC.

9.13 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: In recommending the regulation to the House, the Minister rather apologetically prefaced his remarks by saying that there had been only a small liberalisation of road haulage. There is no doubt that the dead hand of continental bureaucracy is stifling transport firms in the United Kingdom.
My concern is with Northern Ireland, which depends on being able to move its products. They have to be moved considerable distances and, being on the periphery of the Common Market, Northern Ireland suffers sadly from a great number of difficulties. It is a hardship that the United Kingdom quota should still be relatively small. The result is that the number of permits


available to the Province for inter-Community traffic is so small that industry and road hauliers suffer.
I have had complaints about this. I made representations to the authorities, but all I received was the reply that they were bound by the regulations of the Community and by the Council of Ministers, and that nothing could be done about it. As far as I can see, the only people who will benefit, or at least largely benefit, are the road hauliers from the countries on the Continent. How many permits have been available for Northern Ireland since we entered the EEC? How many permits will be available for Northern Ireland next year and in 1976? I hope that the Minister will endeavour to see that more permits are granted to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mulley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to press his constituency and regional point, but until we have the decision of the Council of Ministers twelve months from now, I shall not know how many permits I shall be getting for 1976. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Kilfedder: That will not be of much comfort to my constituents.

9.16 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: This is an important debate because, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, it touches on some elements of the Community's transport policy and suggests that here, as with the common agricultural policy, the Community does not think that the market should reign supreme without certain measures of control.
To us on the Labour benches, this is a broad principle which should be accepted, although we need to study the means of intervention proposed in order to ensure that, if the market has adverse economic or social effects, they will be improved by intervention. This instrument is only one part of what one hopes—although there is not much sign of it—is a developing transport policy in the Community, a policy which is specified in the Treaty of Rome. Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the thinking in the Council of Ministers on this question?
We have been told that the new members of the Community are to receive a

20 per cent, increase in their quotas this year because they started with rather low quotas, while the other members of the Community are to receive quotas of 15 per cent. Why has the figure of 15 per cent, been chosen? Is it because it is the rate at which international road traffic is growing? If so, what census information is there to prove that it is an appropriate rate? I understand that the Commission has considered having a thorough review of the matter? What has been planned in this respect?
My right hon. Friend has just referred, in answer to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), to his uncertainty about the 1976 figures. I thought that at one time the Commission wanted to put forward figures for a two-year rather than a one-year period, so there would be 15 per cent, growth in 1975 and a further 15 per cent, in 1976.
It has been suggested that the French presidency of the Council of Ministers would be looking towards a solution for only one year and would like to see an increase in quotas across the board of 20 per cent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist such a proposal. It seems to me that, given the very low level of quotas on which we began, as did the other new big members, we ought to have, despite the substantial increase which my right hon. Friend obtained earlier this year, a faster rate of increase than existing members.

9.20 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I wish to add my comments to what has been implied by hon. Members on both sides of the House, indirectly, in welcoming this debate. On Monday, in the other EEC "take note" debates there was a deal of very valuable philosophising. For that reason, it is likely that hon. Members will welcome information today and be grateful if we stick to the specific subject under discussion.
From the Opposition Front Bench, we thank the Minister for his comprehensive report and his explanation of this draft regulation, and we have in mind especially the fact that time is getting short for the mid-December meeting when the draft regulation has to be ratified by the Transport Council.
The House will be glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford


(Mr. Davies) with us again today. There were those in this House who suggested—and it was reported in the Press, though the names of individual hon. Members were not mentioned—that the Scrutiny Committee was getting into difficulty with its enormous work-load and that morning sittings of the House would be necessary. Et voila! We have one, even if in unpredictable and different circumstances.
Again on behalf of the House, if I may anticipate it without overdoing it, I wish to express our gratitude to the Scrutiny Committee for having recommended this draft regulation for debate.
Although the draft regulation covers a small part of the total volume of road haulage by everything except own-account operators in the Community, this is an important subject in view of its implications for the present, for next year, and for the longer term.
I shall confine myself to echoing some of the misgivings which have been expressed on both sides of the House. However, I shall not take them too far, bearing in mind that this is part and parcel of the way in which the Community works.
We are now seeing that there is not only a developing intimate relationship between the Floor of the House and the Scrutiny Committee but an increasing understanding in this House of how the Community works, how the Council of Ministers works, and how these regulations work.
From the point of view of our road hauliers, there are very important issues at stake. In terms of the relationship, in so far as there is one, between the bilateral quota arrangements and allocations of Community quotas in terms of volume number and percentage increase, the bilateral quotas are much more important and relevant to our road hauliers and those of other member nations than the Community quota.
One hon. Member referred to 7 per cent, or 8 per cent. Other hon. Members have suggested something less. But the quota is very small beer, although the intrinsic nature of the quota is very much more important because of the greater productivity in a Community heavy lorry journey than in a bilateral heavy lorry journey.
Having suggested that these matters are important for our road haulage industry and that there are misgivings, with the industry and Members of this House wondering about the future of the arrangements and how they will develop, perhaps I may put one or two matters to the Minister in the hope that he will have a chance to deal with them later in the debate. For example, what are the implications for the common transport policy as a whole as it develops in future? These quotas form a very small part of the total picture.
We on this side of the House would like to know the Government's attitude to a developing common transport policy in the Community. I am well aware of the scenario of negotiation, or renegotiation as some hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer as the title, but, despite that, this is a matter of some interest. Indeed, I think it has been alluded to by the Scrutiny Committee itself.
The draft regulation also underlines the interim nature of the regulation of these quotas. As the Minister rightly said, there is more to come in future. We assume that this is a developing, dynamic situation, whatever anxieties we may have about the small size of the increase.
What is the reason for the difference? What is the reason for the 15 per cent, to existing members and 20 per cent, for new members? Can it be better explained? Is it accepted by the administration in this country? What is the right hon. Gentlemen's attitude to this matter? What is the Government's attitude to bilateral quotas which have been mentioned several times in the debate?
The Minister rightly paid tribute to France for what had been agreed and negotiated after difficult negotiations. We understand that the Government have gone through difficult negotiations on this matter. The French situation, with the big increase in the quota allocations, is very satisfactory in the circumstances.
Aside from whatever hon. Members may feel about the system and about the allocations, whether a free regime, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, would be better or not, this is the system in both the bilateral quotas and the Community quotas that we have in Europe, and, for better or for worse, the position for France is indeed satisfactory. So is the German situation.
However, it is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he is concerned about Italy and that he hopes for something better. The road haulage industry in this country is rightly alarmed about Italy. I know that there has not been a proper Government there for some time and I understand the political difficulties in that country, but what looks like being the outcome, with a severe reduction in the quota, is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage the anxieties in our road haulage industry.
Looking at the 1975 and 1976 European quota figures, I think that the Minister would agree that the United Kingdom is not doing well. I know that a 20 per cent, increase is allowed for the three new members, but we are the biggest of those new members both in size of gross national product and in the highly developed state of our road haulage industry. Comparing the 1975 figure of 272 for the United Kingdom with 392 for France and 409 for Germany, is that relationship fair?
Despite an improvement relatively in percentage terms for 1976, because of the five points difference in the rate of increase, 318 authorisations for the United Kingdom, compared with 443 for France and 463 for Germany, is still inadequate unless the longer-term development of the system and the increases make up and compensate for that difference. Again, I allow for the fact that this is very much a minority proportion of total journeys by heavy lorries in the Community.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to this matter in his opening remarks, but perhaps he will enlarge, at least briefly, on when he intends to press, not only in the mid-December meeting, but subsequently, for better treatment for this country on those authorisations.
Finally, referring to what has been said about the method by which these quotas are allocated, I should like the Minister to explain in more detail, if it is possible and feasible, the method of allocation. I believe that there is a new Department of the Environment office established not only for the bilateral quotas but also to deal with the Community quotas and the way in which they are farmed out to United Kingdom hauliers. Again, I exclude the "own

account" operators in this respect. What does the Minister think about the system and how it will develop? Does he regard it as satisfactory?
Speaking for the Opposition, I hope that the Minister will resolutely resist the attempt by certain countries and certain interests to mix up tariffication weights and measures and other related matters with the question of quotas and allocations. I hope that he will again give us further reassurance on that.

Mr. Mulley: This has been a valuable debate, not least because both the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) took part. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for his kind remarks. As in his case, in order to be be here at this time of the morning, most of us have had to be here all night as well.
I would go a long way with the right hon. Member for Down, South in favour of a more liberal system in the EEC for international road haulage. Indeed, I have ventured to make some remarks in both the Council of Ministers of the Community and the wider European Committee of Ministers of Transport on exactly that theme. Although I did not state the proposition with the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, I shall fortify myself for the next council meeting by taking a copy of today's HANSARD with me.
Certainly I accept—this is our great interest in the Community quota system—that there is a great need to go much further. Many of our friends in the Community find it difficult to move as fast and as far as we would like to go. However, there is between the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries, including one EEC member, absolute freedom of movement on a reciprocal basis.
I also agree that the issue and supervision of the terms need overhaul. Indeed, I have had it in mind to press for a thorough overhaul of the whole system. In this context, it may be that, despite what my hon. Friend said, one year might be more desirable for the extension of the present system than two, so that after a year we could see how it was working.
There were questions about the 15 per cent, growth rate. I gather that this has no specific statistical basis. That of course is another reason why we need to have a major review of the freight market and the system.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I am sorry that we did not give enough information in the memorandum that we submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. We shall certainly see whether it is possible to give more in future, although I sense that they have a large number of documents to deal with and that perhaps they would not want too lengthy communications from Ministers. Certainly we shall try to remedy that if it is felt that we have omitted essential information.
My hon. Friend seemed to think that the bilateral arrangements went on indefinitely. They have to be renegotiated every year. Although I said that some of the negotiations were very long and difficult, I should not want the House to feel that we had any undue difficulty with either France or Germany this time. I pay tribute to my officials involved in these negotiations. It has been a very hard job, but we have been very pleased with the way in which these negotiations have worked out.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Harrow, East asked about how the national allocations were worked out as between the individual countries. I do not know that there is any very logical basis. Although I share completely the hon. Member's concern that we should get better terms, I must point out to him that the present unsatisfactory position arises to a large extent because of the very low number of permits—119—I inherited when I became Minister in March. As already in a very short time I have achieved a 75 per cent, increase, I do not think that it becomes the Tory Party to be too critical of me as though it were my responsibility.
One of the reasons for this was the fact—it was made pretty open—that within the Council of Ministers there was this link between the number of permits we got and our willingness to go along with Commission proposals on weight and dimensions.
In June I was happy to have the link broken. It is on the record of the countries concerned that they no longer want to link the two matters. My view is that, generally speaking, it would be wrong to link Community quotas with this, that or the other consideration that might come before the Council. I should be unwilling to go along with arrangements of that kind, although I do not unduly criticise my predecessor, because I am sure that he was not a party to the linking. It was a unilateral act on the part of the other countries concerned.
I was asked about the allocation of Community quotas within this country when we get them. It has been a very difficult business because the number is so small. The next allocations will be sent to those who already have quotas and have used them. This takes up the point about the records which has been mentioned. The purpose of the record is that it is a requirement of the Commission in issuing the quotas and, unless we can show that we make good use of the quotas, this is held against us in the assesment for future allocations. The hauliers who can show that they have used quotas heavily will get them renewed. The additional permits which we hope to get will go to hauliers who make a case that they have capacity for making the fullest use of them.
These quotas are different from the bilateral permits which are only for a journey between Britain and another country, which may involve returning empty, and which can be used only once. The Community quotas, if we are to get the best value from them, should be used very frequently, and, if used economically, should involve carrying goods between more than two of the Community countries.
We have an International Road Freight Office of the Department of the Environment in Newcastle. The allocations are based on criteria which we have agreed with the two major road haulage bodies—the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. It is a difficult job, but I believe that my officials do their best in the difficult circumstances to make a proper and fair allocation, but, as is usual when things are in short supply, it would be impossible to satisfy everybody's desire and expectations. It would be wrong, if not impossible, to


make the allocations on a regional or geographical basis. The quotas must be allocated to hauliers who have traffic travelling to the countries concerned and who would make the most use of them.
I do not have with me the exact figure of the number of permits that were issued to Northern Ireland. I will have that figure procured and sent to the hon. Member for Down, North.
I cannot give the House any information about the number of quotas we shall get in 1976, because we are having the debate before the Council of Ministers' meeting, so that I can go there fortified with the views of the House. It may be, although I hope it is not the case, that there will not be any next year because the system may not be renewed. I stress that the draft regulation before us is the proposal of the Commission. I do not know and I cannot know until the Council of Ministers takes place what the reaction of the other members will be to the 15 per cent, for the original Six and 20 per cent, for the new members.
I accept that there is a need for as many additional permits as we can get, but we must accept that we are in a different situation from road haulage journeys to Europe from the Continental States. A lot of our journeys to the Continent go by national transport on this side, on to ships, and then on to national transport on the other side. These journeys do not need quotas. Between the original Six there are road frontiers, and those States probably have a greater case for them.
We shall not know, however, until the meeting takes place, exactly what views and pressures will be exerted, but certainly my aim will be to get an increase in the total system and an increase, if at all possible, in the British proportion of it.
The common transport policy is in one sense disappointing, yet in another sense it is understandable that the Community has not gone very far in working out national transport policy. In my view an extension of this system would be one way of moving in that direction. I think that it will be helpful to quote from this debate so that I can show my colleagues that we feel that we should have a bigger share of the Community quotas and that the House still feels the same as in November 1972 that we are not interested

in a change in the weight and dimension of vehicles.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1255/74.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that a Message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks as follows:
The Lords agree with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill without amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1 National Theatre Act 1974.
2 Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.

EEC (PREPACKED PRODUCTS)

9.43 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): I beg to move
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. COM(72)202 and R/2628/73.
I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if, in view of the time factor and in the interests of those hon. Members who are particularly involved in Friday's business, I am fairly cryptic in my initial remarks and address myself to particular points later when they are raised.
I agree with the recommendation of the Committee on Secondary Legislation that this particular set of directives should come to the House. The central issue involved is the choice between the average and the minimum contents system, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider that.
Even if this document were not before us we would soon need to have a discussion because of the decisions at the


United Nations Codex Alimentarius Committee where it has been overwhelmingly recommended that the average system should be adopted throughout member countries.
First I shall deploy the key points in the individual directives.
The first, dealing with bottles as measuring containers, does not specify the products that should go into these containers, merely the metrological standards that must be met to ensure that the bottles are adequate for the purpose. This involves specifying the manufacturing tolerances within which they must be made. Tests to ensure tolerances and the methods of marking are made. The use of bottles in this way is novel to the United Kingdom but it is something which will be advantageous and helpful to the consumer.
The liquids directive, if I may call it that, has two objectives. The first is to set up a commonly acceptable method of measuring. This is based on the fact that the nominal quantities will, on average, be met over a production run. Around this there is the safety net established by tolerances below which the quantity must not fall. In addition, this directive also prescribes quantities for certain liquids covered in Annexe III. This is optional, however, and a member country can have a larger range if it so chooses, or no range at all as long as goods which meet the directive's standards are allowed access to the member country's market.
Work started on this directive before we joined the EEC. We have obtained certain, I think important, improvements. The first is a derogation of three and a half years. That, when added to a one and a half year time lag for implementation, gives us a five-year preparation period before implementation. We have also obtained the important agreement that checks will now be acceptable at the retail level and at the point of import. I regard this as an important attainment for the method of inspection in this country. That is covered in Annexe I, paragraph 6. There is also a minute of the Council, clarifying this.
In general all our export sizes have been covered by the ranges which have been agreed. For example, the dispute

over the bottle of Scotch has now been settled and the 75 centilitre and 37½ centilitre sizes have been agreed upon.
The solids directive obtains a similar objective, for virtually all goods other than those covered by the liquids directive. It includes some liquids. The list is in Annexe III. This directive does not prescribe quantities. The experience of the liquid directive was that the prescribing of quantities led to a substantial delay in the preparation of the directive. Therefore it was decided to separate the prescribed quantities into a directive of their own. This is still at an early stage of preparation. In the meantime it was agreed to put forward the directive which is before us.
The Council working group is still considering certain important issues about this directive. There are, as hon. Members will recognise, two lists—A and B—giving the full range of tolerances which are permitted. These vary according to the difficulty of control at the point of production. Certain manufacturers are trying to get yet a third list. I advise the House that we would regard this as unacceptable and are arguing against it in the working group.
I come to the basic principle, which is why I am sure the Committee felt it proper that these directives should come to the House. The system in this country has always been to specify the minimum amounts contained in cans, bottles and so on. This is the system to which we have clung and to which we tried to cling in our discussions at the EEC and in the discussions at Codex Alimentarius. At Ottawa and at Rome it was clear that world opinion, other than in Japan and Holland, was overwhelmingly against the minimum system.
Instead what is being proposed is a system of statistical sampling at or near the point of manufacture to ensure that contents, on average, meet the nominal amounts stated on the containers. There are negative tolerances which put a base nei below which quantities should not fall. This system differs from our present system in that the inspection has to take place primarily at the factory end rather than at the retail end. We have come to an arrangement on liquids and we are trying to obtain the same arrangement for solids. We have an arrangement


which enables us to carry out inspection at the point of import and at the point of sale.
We tried to persuade the EEC to accept our system. We were unsuccessful and when the United Nations' decision was arrived at it presented us with a situation in which as a trading nation we had the choice of adopting a new system or imposing on our manufacturers the unnecessary cost of running two production lines and placing them at a grave disadvantage in the world market. I am afraid that the change that is taking place is inevitable in the circumstances regardless of market conditions.
We must not overstate the general case, but the existence of the negative tolerance system means that there is a minimum volume set within the system. Even under our own system under the weights and measures legislation a certain amount of error is permitted below the minimum. We have now obtained further checks for liquids and we hope in future to achieve the same checks for solids at the point of sale. I think that that will overcome some of the criticisms of the system.
The average system does offer certain advantages. Some goods are difficult to legislate for because in storage or display they tend to lose weight or volume—for example, tobacco and knitting wool. Even wine can be covered by the average at the point of packing. The system will facilitate something which many hon. Members have wished to see—namely, the introduction of weight control. For instance, the weight of the whole of the fruit in a can of fruit will be taken into account and not the syrup. These are important changes and I would not wish to underestimate them.
The fact remains that we have an agreement with the Commission that we can withdraw from the Market, or block entry to the Market of, any goods from Member countries if we do not think that they have been packed in accordance with the directive. That is a far more important sanction than any fine. We regard this as an important weapon in protecting the consumer.
The directive states only the broad lines of principle and there are many points of detail to be worked out. For that reason my Department is now about to set up a working party consisting of

consumer representatives, industrial representatives, and representatives of local authorities who will be mainly from the inspectorate and importers. The main aim is to work on the detailed systems of statistical control and on the various issues which arise as a result of acceptance of the directive. We have had full consultations and the Consumer Association has made it clear that it would also have preferred to stay on the minimum system, but in its last October speaking notes the belief is expressed that over a period the losses and gains should even themselves out.

9.53 a.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Those reading the report of the debate will probably not think that 10 o'clock in the morning or shortly before is a bad time of day to debate this matter. They may reconsider that view if they realise that we have all been up all night beforehand. I make no complaint about that. However, if we take a little more than a third of the time which the House has allocated to debate this matter we shall lose Friday's business.
As the whole object of the exercise is to ensure that the House has adequate time to debate these matters, I hope that the Government will ensure on a future occasion that if some accident restricts time unduly, provision will be made for additional time to be allowed. In the circumstances of the past 24 hours the restricted time available is clearly an accident. I in no way impugn the Government's motives. However, if accidents happen some sort of first aid should be provided for these measures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), speaking last Monday in the debate on a similar order, emphasised the point which the Scrutiny Committee had in mind in recommending that we should debate particular matters, namely those of legal or political importance. This document raises points of principle which should be considered by the House. I wish to stress that it seems to me that the provision of the document—though not necessarily the detail—ought to result in a greater freedom of trade within the Community area, and this is something which it is desirable to achieve. It is a question of liberalisation as well as of harmonisation. That matter


is not unimportant and should motivate the provisions in the document. It is also true that this arrangement may not have been achieved at all if we were not members of the Community. That in itself is an important consideration.
We are being asked to take note of the various documents mentioned on the Order Paper, but also we are asking the Government to take note of the views which we express. The Minister said that points made in this discussion would be useful for further negotiations and discussions. The reinforcement of Ministers' determination in negotiation is often as important as seeking to determine policy. We can all agree on that matter.
I should like to make one or two points about the documents with which we have been provided. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said, that explanatory memoranda put forward by the Government should be as short as possible, but at the same time it is important that they should deal with the subject adequately and there is a balance to be struck. It is tremendously important that memoranda should be absolutely objective. Therefore, I was a little worried to read in the memorandum on Document R/2628/73 a paragraph entitled "Policy Implications":
The main policy issue relates to the choice between declaration of average contents, based on sampling at the point of manufacture, which has gained world-wide approval, and the United Kingdom practice. …
I do not think that it is true to say that the practice has gained worldwide approval, not least because it is not United Kingdom practice. Therefore, memoranda put forward by Ministers and others should be as objective as possible and should not attempt to make value judgments or slip in persuasive arguments under the cover of what should be objective memoranda.
I understand from the debates that took place on this topic in another place on 7th November that the draft on the solids directive is not up to date. Will the Minister confirm whether that is or is not the case?
I turn to the substantive issue—namely, the difference between minimum or average contents which should be imposed when supplying and declaring to con-

sumers the contents of a package. There has been similar opposition in the past on this point from some organisations. They have now accepted, however reluctantly, what is now proposed on the average system as something with which they are prepared to go along.
Most of the arguments on the average system and the minimum system are well known, so I presume the House will not wish to go into them now. Therefore, I shall seek to deal with one or two points on the proposed average system.
Has the Minister any idea how large is the batch from which the statistical sample will be taken? Is that figure laid down? What happens if a batch is faulty—and, if so, is there an implicit sanction in that the batch would then have to be scrapped? Presumably the cost of doing that will fall eventually on the consumer. Does the Minister expect that the costs will be greater for producers under the average than under the minimum system, or will they be less under the minimum system?
The advantage of the minimum system is, of course, apparent. The consumer knows exactly what he is entitled to, whereas all he knows under the average system is that at some stage in the process of production the package he is buying was part of a large number of things which formed a particular sample and the average was all right. We are not in the position which a Ministry of Health spokesman described soon after World War Two when, in referring to the weight of babies, he said that there was no reason why they should not all be above the average weight. I think there is a considerable danger that the products bought by the consumer may be considerably below the average.
Will there be any check now at the retail end? Secondly, if the consumer is not satisfied with the package he buys, has he any grounds for complaint? To be more specific, let us suppose that the tolerances are 5 per cent. either side of a given amount and the consumer buys a package which is outside those tolerances. Does he have any grounds for complaint? If he does, to whom does he complain? The Minister seemed to be rather reassuring on this in referring to Annexe I, paragraph 6, saying in effect that we shall in future be both working an average system but also checking


things at the retail level. I am not clear how he envisages that will work and I should be grateful if he would clarify it for us.
When does the Minister expect the legislation, which, I gather, will be necessary if we proceed on the lines he suggested to be introduced? There seemed to be confusion in earlier discussions on the subject about whether it had to be introduced within 18 months from the directive being approved or whether we could continue with our existing system until 1980. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify this and in particular confirm whether it will be possible for us to continue with non-metric systems in this country when the items are used for domestic consumption as against being exported, not only up to 1980 but even beyond that date, if certain producers wish to maintain their existing arrangements.
I have been very brief and have phrased my speech almost entirely in terms of questions. I shall be grateful if the Minister will kindly answer these points.

10.3 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: We are throwing away 1,000 years of history. Hitherto in this country it has always been possible for a purchaser to determine whether he was getting the quantity he thought he was buying. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked a very relevant question: can purchasers any longer assure themselves of that in any way?
Many Members of the House who have been in industry are well aware of the mathematical ways in which one can deal with problems of quality control or sample products when one buys them or as they pass through a factory or are passing out of a factory if one wishes to do so. This is fine for a large organisation.
In Annexe II of the memorandum the answer to the hon. Member for Worthing's question is set out in magnificent mathematical formulae. They are accurate. I am sure that my hon. Friends and many other hon Members are aware that they are accurate. I am equally sure, however, that 90 per cent. of the community will not be able to understand them.
In this extraordinary directive, a package is called not a package but a prepackage. For a thousand years of British history the housewife has known that when she buys a package she will receive not necessarily a certain quantity but not less than a certain quantity. This has been known from the Middle Ages and before. One does not necessarily get the same quantity in every package of goods. But hitherto, with certain exceptions, if someone bought, for example, a 1 lb packet of soap flakes, she might get a few marginal grammes over, but at least she got a pound. She got what she was paying for.
In a sense the balance was in favour of the consumer—one of the few cases, perhaps, where it was. Now the balance is being altered. Instead of receiving not less than a pound if one is buying a 1 lb packet, one receives a packet which is on average a pound. The balance is no longer in favour of the consumer. She is no longer getting at least what she has paid for. She is receiving on average what she has paid for. which may be less or may be more.
The consumer has in theory, one presumes, to look up Annexe II to make sure that in a given batch she buys a certain number of packages to conform to the sample size listed in the annexe. How else does she prove that she is getting on average the right quantity? According to the directive, she can prove it only from the appropriate number of packets in a given production batch. How does anybody do that at the consumer end? It is something only a great quality control organisation can do at the production end.
The basic reason why the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and Members on the Government benches have always objected to the Common Market is that it is undemocratic. This is a perfect example of the effects of lack of democracy. We are given a system which is perfect for a large organisation to operate, and impossible for the consumer to operate, because the consumer, the member of the democracy, is not catered for by the Common Market.
My hon. Friend the Minister, in a very fair speech in which he put not only the case for the directive but the case against it, said that it was not just the Common Market but the United Nations that has


done this. I have never thought that an organisation which gives both the United States and a tiny island in the Pacific one vote in its General Assembly was a magnificent representative of democracy. It may be a world organisation, and a universal organisation, but it is not representative of the population of the world. On a count of heads it is far from democratic. Like the Common Market, it can be subjected to the lobbies of producers as distinct from the interests of the vast mass of millions of relatively unorganised consumers. The fact that the United Nations as well as the Common Market is saying that no longer can the housewife make sure that she gets not less than she thinks she is buying does not impress me.
When my hon. Friend and his colleagues go to Brussels to discuss the directive, do they propose to say that perhaps it would be a good idea if Europe were different and distinct from other organisations in the United Nations?
We are told that one of the advantages of joining the Common Market is that the EEC is a great trading block which can, to some extent, make its point of view felt in the trading world because it has a quarter, or something of that character, of the world's trade. If that is so, let us exercise this power and let us say as Europeans that we believe in the consumer, and not the producer, being protected.

10.10 a.m.

Mr. John Davies: Having regard to the hour and conditions, I do not wish to speak at length. The matters of concern have been adequately ventilated by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
I understand the depth of feeling of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and I share his view to some degree. We have become accustomed over many years, as indeed did our ancestors, to the concept of minimum, and it is a hard moment when one has to break it. However, the hon. Gentleman's general strictures about the adequacy of the United Nations as a body to look into these matters were a little unjust. The bodies concerned are expert. They are well advised by their respective

Governments, industries, consumer associations, and so on.
I should have thought that the great weight of opinion which emerged in the committee of the United Nations which considered this matter represented pretty good evidence of serious consideration and serious conclusion. Therefore, we must take account of it and, as in many other matters, it means that we must at times tear up pages of our history. I am sorry that this is part of our experience in the present century and no doubt it will continue in subsequent centuries.
With regard to explanatory memoranda, there is a balance to be struck. The House does not want to be troubled with excessively lengthy memoranda. On the other hand, it needs clear indications from the ministerial side about the substantial issues, whether legal or policy. There is a tendency to err on the side of the laconic, which is strangely in contrast with much that is emerging from Government. I should hope that they would be a little more discursive on some of the issues which are of substantial importance to us.
My second point relates to the question of consumer interest. The consumer in this country will find himself faced with some difficult dilemmas in the sense that he or she will not be sure, because of the optional nature of the directive, whether at a given moment he or she is buying on a minimum or an average basis. Inevitably there will be a substantial period during which the situation of the consumer will be confused. Therefore, once the decision has been taken to move this way, the Government would be wise to move fully this way and, in due course, to try to ensure that the consumer has but one criterion by which to judge what he is buying. I hope that that will be in the Government's mind.
The Minister spoke with some satisfaction about the additional checks which have been obtained in discussion both at the point of import and at the point of sale in relation to goods manufactured outside the country. I understand the desire to ensure the interest of the consumer and I readily believe that it is inevitable that the consumer relies, and will rely more and more, on checks undertaken by the Government than on his own assessment of the goods which he


purchases. This is part of the development of the retail trade and it is very difficult to resist.
It is undesirable that there should be proliferation of bureaucratic activity in relation to check, counter-check and re-check. I only hope that in adopting a firm and definite policy the Government will soon find it possible to concentrate their check system on a given point and, as experience is gained, rely on the efficacy and validity of the check system in other countries. I hope the checks will not infer an inescapable increase in bureaucratic operations in relation to goods.
Inevitably, in the circumstances of this debate, it has not been possible to discuss the full impact of these measures, amplified as they will be by further measures, upon industry generally. The impact is considerable and wide-ranging. The replacement of equipment which may have a perfectly valid life ahead but which must be jettisoned because of the directives will throw severe costs on industry. I appeal to the Government to take that into account in relation to the Price Code.
The provisions of the Price Code hardly make allowance for companies with perfectly valid equipment which they are obliged to put aside to comply with domestic or Community directives which totally invalidate the investment they have made. I hope that the amendments to the Price Code which are envisaged will embrace not simply a proportion but the totality of investment where that investment is solely in respect of the replacement of perfectly valid equipment which is rendered invalid.
Those are the issues to which I hope the Minister will address himself and on which he will let us know his views.

10.17 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: I welcome the clear exposition of my hon. Friend the Minister in moving the motion. It contained much of the material that is lacking from the explanatory memorandum and reinforced the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that it would be helpful to have a fuller explanatory memorandum.
The consumer in future will have to place great reliance on the efficacy of the sampling and supervision procedure

of weights and measures inspectors or, as they are now called, trading standards officers. Has my hon. Friend considered the retraining of the former weights and measures inspectors to enable them to carry out their new and rather different tasks? Will the working party of which he spoke consider the type of training courses which will be needed?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the trading standards officers will have to carry out, on behalf of the consumer—who will not have the same reliance on minimum quality which he has had in the past—their new and important task. I hope that the Government will ensure that they are properly equipped to do so.

10.19 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sorry that there is such a shortage of time. It is a pity that we went on to consider the second EEC document, as it might have been better for the reputation of the House had we spent more time on the first. When difficulties arise in future, people will read the debate, and we shall be criticised for having got ourselves into this mess.
The public will not necessarily understand the new system. I do not understand the mathematics. If people suspect that something can be fiddled, public confidence will drain away from a system which hitherto has enjoyed public confidence. Under the present system, any citizen can go to the town hall and get a weights and measures inspector to go into a shop to weigh goods about which he is suspicious. To that extent the system is self-regulating. In this respect we are throwing that system away. There will be no time for a Division on the motion, but in other circumstances 1 would not have wished to take note of the document because it seems that we are making a break with a very important function.
My hon. Friend did not mention what the tolerance is to be. I hope that it is contained in the regulations because it is important. If someone has a bonanza now and again, most of the others will be beneath average.

Mr. English: It is possible, of course, that the Government do not understand the mathematics either.

Mr. Spearing: It is wrong for any Government to bring forward regulations affecting ordinary people which the mass of those people, even those with low level mathematics, do not understand.
Shall we still maintain the dual system in the domestic market? If we can maintain it, we should. The onus is on the Government to maintain it and to maintain public confidence in our laws and in our democratic system which this document seeps away.

10.21 a.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: I will deal with as many points as I can.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked how much is a batch. It will depend on the nature of the process and the product. There is a ceiling of 10,000. Anything over that will be related to the hourly rate of production. There is a ceiling, but it is a matter for the inspectorate to determine what will be the appropriate size of sample in any specific case.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be a check on the retail side. The relevant minute of the Council of Ministers states:
The Council agrees that the directive does not prevent the introduction or maintenance of national legislation for control of the import, wholesade or retail level in order to protect the consumer.
That further amplifies paragraph 6 of Annexe I.

Mr. Higgins: Does that mean that if the consumer in the shop finds something, perhaps imported from another EEC country, which is below the average tolerance as set out, he has recourse? If so, to whom does he complain?

Mr. Williams: Of course he has recourse for complaint. He will complain, as at present, to the Weights and Measures Inspectorate, which would be able to take appropriate action.
The hon. Gentleman also asked when legislation will be modified. We gained a derogation which gave a total period of five years for our preparations. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) about our not wanting to be unduly slow if it means a lengthy and confusing transitional period, but we shall obtain advice from the working party.
Will the cost be greater than under the minimum system? We expect the price effect to be neutral. Yesterday I was told at a conference of soap and detergent manufacturers that it would be helpful from the cost point of view, but I am not holding them out as a sample from which one can necessarily draw conclusions for the whole of industry. Our assessment is that it might work out neutral in its cost impact.
I was asked whether Imperial measures would be allowed. The answer is yes, for internal trade. I know that the hon. Gentleman has referred in private conversation to his concern about the importance of being able to buy a pint of milk. That will be possible if the public want it. Milk sold in bottles is not a matter of international trade, so I see no difficulty arising.

Mr. Roper: Does the same apply to milk imported by Northern Ireland from the Republic, or does that have to be in metric measures?

Mr. Williams: They will have a five-year period, anyhow, in which to cooperate At that stage it would work in the same way as trade between any other two member States.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West referred to 1,000 years of history. It makes a dramatic point. Unfortunately, it does not have much statistical base. My hon. Friend doubted the statistical understanding of Ministers, and I cannot boast about my own detailed knowledge. Foods were not controlled until 1926, and non-foods until 1963. The Magna Carta did not prescribe exact quantities, and, during the war, certain products were on an averaged basis, anyhow.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend's officers are looking only at the statute book. They have forgotten that in the Middle Ages bread and other products were controlled by the authority of each individual borough.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend said that we had been accustomed for 1,000 years to being absolutely sure of the minimum amount being obtained. It is a nice debating point, but it is not one which bears a great deal of historical analysis.
The hon. Member for Worthing and my hon. Friend the Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Roper) were rightly concerned about the statistical nature of the control data. The statistical data are intended to give guidance to the inspectors. The method of control will be at the factory, and it will be a statistically agreed system by the consumer and the inspectorate to ensure that the standards are sustained. The inspectors have access to factories for spot checks. No one will be able to stop them carrying out those checks and undertaking the appropriate inspections that they consider necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. COM(72)202 and R/2628/73.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

CIVIL SERVICE AND POST OFFICE (SUPERANNUATION)

10.28 a.m.

Mr. John Golding: I feel sorry for the Minister, not only because I have kept him up all night waiting for this debate but also because I am sure that, left to himself, he would not have wanted to turn down this claim. He is too good a friend of all Post Office staff for that. He may even have a personal interest. However, I fear that he may be defending a position forced upon him by the dead and shrivelled hand of the Treasury—and we all know how dead and shrivelled that hand can be when asked to hand over money.
As the Minister knows so well, an issue of great importance to many Post Office people, both working and retired, is that not all their years of service are counted in full for pension purposes. All the years since 14th July 1949 count in full, but not years of unestablished service between 1st January 1919 and 13th July 1949, which count half, or years before 1st January 1919, which in many cases do not count at all. Although most are in the Civil Service, many are out-

side, mainly in the Post Office. Of these a substantial number are members of the Post Office Engineering Union, of which I am an assistant secretary, but many are members of the Union of Post Office Workers, to which my hon. Friend the Minister belongs, and they, too, are affected.
The main groups affected are the ex-Service men of two world wars who joined the service as temporaries, the ex-Service men of the Second World War who entered directly and whose war service is not counted in full, civilians who entered as temporaries, both during and immediately after the war, and those who were in jobs that until about 1946 were classified as unestablished.
Around 1948, I worked with many temporary clerks who would at this time be retiring on inadequate pensions, but this morning I am particularly concerned with those who worked in the engineering department of the old Post Office, and more particularly those members of the Post Office Engineering Union, such as the factory grades, who served from 1919 entirely in an unestablished capacity until after the Second World War.
The question whether all service should count for pension purposes was last examined impartially by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service of 1953–55. After reviewing the evidence of the staff side and of the Treasury, in paragraph 743 of its report the Royal Commission said:
It seems to us that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding. It is in fact now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full; the 1946 decision certainly affords a precedent for retrospection of the kind claimed and supports the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point of time it is also right at others. It is our view that the sole consideration is one of cost.
The Royal Commission accepted the principle, pointed to the retrospection that had taken place earlier, and said that the sole consideration was cost.
Ever since, the unions concerned have been pressing Government to meet their obligations and to find the cost, although, to make it easier, the unions have agreed to waive the recalculation of gratuities and to negotiate a phased introduction. They have been unsuccessful. Unfortunately for the 500,000 or more people affected—200,000 of whom are retired—


the present Government do not seem to want to honour their obligation.
I quote from a letter from the Minister to Anthony Carter, who is the Secretary-General of the Council of the Post Office Unions. He said:
The cost of meeting the claim would be several hundred million pounds spread over a long period of years and this has to be set against the priorities attaching to all the other parts of the Government's programme.
The claim has been considered by successive Administrations and has been consistently rejected on the grounds that, quite apart from the merits of the claim, the cost was prohibitive. It was very carefully re-examined earlier this year, and I have now carefully reconsidered the matter myself. I am afraid, however, I see no prospect of accepting the reckoning of pre-1949 unestablished service in full.
Two points need to be made. First, the reference to the merits of the claim is unfortunate. All associated with it had believed that that issue was finally settled by the Priestley Commission. We should have thought it unnecessary to point out that it was the lowest grades and the industrial workers who have been penalised hardest, that some men, such as Bill Brown of the factories, who died last year, have lost 15 years of pensionable service. Secondly, the use of the phrase "no prospect" is unfortunate.
Both references are unfortunate against the background of the pledge that Labour gave at the time of the 1964 General Election in response to approaches on the subject of all service counting. That pledge was:
Labour accepts the principle that all non-established service should count for pension and will take steps, in consultation with the appropriate bodies, to improve on the earlier reforms introduced by the last Labour Government in 1946 and 1949".
If Labour accepted that in principle in 1964, all that remains is to determine what improvements can be made on 1946 and 1949.
Personally, I should like to see the claim met in full, but I must make it clear that the Post Office unions stick to their 1965 offer: first, that they would accept that there should be no recalculation of lump sums already paid; secondly, they would negotiate gradual implementation; thirdly, and perhaps most important, that they would see their way to the settling of a reasonable limit.
The Government, in my view bound by the 1964 election pledge, should now negotiate with the Post Office unions on that basis. They should set a time limit and perhaps settle a reasonable financial limit. The unions could not be more reasonable and the Government ought to respond by making an offer. I hope that this morning the Minister will be able to reward both of us by making it clear that, although the Government cannot see their way perhaps in the coming few months to making an offer that in all justice they should make, at least there is hope in the future for the many pensioners who feel a great sense of injustice.

10.37 a.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for the lucidity with which he has put his case this morning and for the characteristically kind way in which he referred to what might be termed my vested interest in the subject of all unestablished service counting. Perhaps his comments in that regard will serve at least to demonstrate the sincerity of my approach to this issue.
I recognise that in raising this matter on the Adjournment my hon. Friend is reflecting the widespread and understandable concern of those who are affected. I hope that my hon. Friend for his part will equally accept that we should look at the problem in perspective.
This issue is but one aspect of the Civil Service pension scheme. I do not claim that the scheme is perfect, but I doubt whether I shall be seriously challenged when I say that it is one of the best in the country. We are proud—and this is not a matter on which we differ from our predecessors to any marked extent—that the scheme is one of the best, and we fully intend to keep it in the forefront of pension schemes generally.
It will, I feel sure, be conceded that substantial improvements in the scheme were made in 1949, and my hon. Friend mentioned that. That date has much significance in the context of this debate. Those improvements were followed by further substantial improvements in 1971 and 1972 when, among other improvements, public service pensions were inflation-proofed. That single improvement


has led to successive annual increases in pensions of some 9 per cent in the past two successive years, to be followed by an increase of 16½ per cent. on 1st December next.
These increases have benefited all public service pensioners. The cost of Civil Service pensions alone is now running at the level of £160 million a year. On all sides of the House, I am sure that we accept this cost as just and fair, representing as it does the reward in retirement for those who spend all or some part of their working lives in service to the State.
However, as reasonable opinion will accept, there is a limit to public expenditure. I am being invited this morning to push back the frontiers that we have now reached in the Civil Service pension scheme beyond 1949 and beyond even 1919, at least in regard to our treatment of unestablished service. I am being invited to say that because since 1949 we have regarded unestablished service as counting in full for pension purposes, we should now change the rules which operated prior to 1949. If we were to do that we should be increasing the cost of Civil Service pensions on this account alone by several hundred millions of pounds over the next 20 to 30 years.
But the costs would not stop there. How could we possibly justify changing the rules retrospectively in relation to this one class of case when there are many other classes who regard themselves as equally deserving, if not more so? As the Minister concerned, I receive many claims that by our current pension standards one particular group of individuals or another has been poorly treated at some time in the past, and, viewed in isolation, this is frequently the case. Consequently, as my hon. Friend has done this moring, I am being invited now to extend my compassion and to put right this particular case.
My hon. Friend has made the point, and he referred to the merits of the campaign to count unestablished service in full. But I am sure that he would not wish me at this stage to enter into an argument as to which is the most deserving case. He recognises, as most reasonable people do, that there is a well-recognised and widely accepted prin-ciple in both public sector and private

sector pension schemes—that successive improvements in pension schemes are not granted retrospectively to those who retired before the changes were introduced. If this were not the case, progress on improving pension schemes would have been much slower than it has been. To move away from this position would involve overwhelming costs.
When the Labour Government of 1946 conceded half reckoning of all unestablished service back to 1st January 1919 the change was justified on the basis that this was not new legislation retrospectively changing the conditions of service of members of a particular class. It was simply the tidying up of the past to remove major anomalies in the treatment of individuals in the same class resulting from the use of earlier discretionary powers. This is a most important distinction and one which I think many people have failed to appreciate.
Furthermore, 1st January 1919 was chosen to avoid an anomaly as between those who had served in the Armed Forces in the 1914–18 war, and whose records had been in large part destroyed, and those who had served in the Civil Service between 1914 and 1918.
It was the Labour Government of 1949 who introduced full reckoning of service from 14th July 1949, the date of the passing of the Superannuation Act of that year. During the passage of the Bill which became that Act there was considerable pressure for the retrospective application of this change right back to 1919. However, as it was argued at the time, to have conceded this claim would not have been simply the removal of an anomaly as between individuals with the same pattern of service but in the fullest sense a retrospective improvement of past conditions of service for all.
So we come to the Royal Commission of 1953–55. Looking at the Civil Service in isolation, it is perhaps not surprising that the Royal Commission concluded that the sole consideration was one of cost. However, without wanting to push the arguments too far, as I have indicated previously, few would dispute that there is room for more than one opinion on the question of the merits of this case. I am sure that, for the reasons I have already given, it is quite impossible to look at this question in isolation, even


within the Civil Service let alone over the wider public service sector.
My hon. Friend has referred to the willingness of the National Staff Side in 1971 to consider any system of gradual implementation. In 1965 and again in 1971 detailed examination was made of suggestions to this end proposed by the National Staff Side and of a number of variants thought up by officials. However, as was explained to the Staff Side, with supporting costing figures, no system of gradual implementation, which would be meaningful and not lead to serious anomalies as between individuals, could be found which would make a significant reduction in the cost.
Up-to-date costings show that the full cost for the Civil Service alone would be some £160 million over the first 10 years and some £70 million over the next 10 years—a total of some £230 million over the first 20 years. My hon. Friend referred to Post Office staff. When one takes into consideration the fact that Post Office staff and pensioners who have the same superannuation arrangements are included, one appreciates that this figure could well be increased by some 30 per cent.
I realise that there is considerable feeling on this subject among those affected. I have listened very carefully to the arguments so eloquently presented by my hon. Friend this morning. But I should be misleading my hon. Friend if I were not to tell him that it is difficult to recognise any new arguments in the case which he has put forward. I should be less than fair if I were to encourage false hopes or at present to hold out any hope of a change of view on the Government's part.
Equally, however, I am mindful that arrangements have been made for the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council to see Sir Douglas Allen, the Head of the Home Civil Service, to discuss this question. Understandably and quite naturally, I must not anticipate what the Staff Side will wish to say at this particular meeting, but I am sure that Sir Douglas Allen will listen as carefully to the arguments of the Staff Side as I have listened to those of my hon. Friend this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock a.m.